PA 

3829 
S7 
1909 
MAIN 


UC-NRLF 


B    M    D33    ATI 


borne  Aspects  of  the 
Dramatic  Art  of  Aeschylus 


BY 


RUFUS  TOWN   STEPHENSON 

PROFESSOR   OF  CLASSICS 
COLLEGE   OF  THE   PACIFIC 


A    DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  th^  Faculty  of 

Leland  Stanford  Junior  University 

for  the 

Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 

1909 


STANFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
DECEMBER,  I913 


Some  Aspects  of  the 
Dramatic  Art  of  Aeschylus 


BY 

RUFUS  TOWN   STEPHENSON 

PROFESSOR    OF  CLASSICS 
COLLEGE   OF  THE   PACIFIC 


A    DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of 

Leland  Stanford  Junior  University 

for  the 

Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 

1909 


STANFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
DECEMBER,  1913 


57- 

hAtt\ 


PREFATORY   NOTE. 


I  wish  to  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  to  Professor 
Augustus  T.  Murray,  in  whose  Seminar  I  began  to  work  on 
some  of  the  literary  problems  handled  in  these  pages.  The 
subject  was  one  he  gave  me,  and  for  a  number  of  suggestions 

I  express  my  hearty  thanks. 

R.  T.  S. 
San  Jose,  Cal.,  June  23,  1913. 


2885(^9 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Chapter  L  ^^^^ 

Devices  for  Movements  of  Actors  and  Chorus     ...  7  ^ 

An  Introductory  Statement 7 

Preliminary  Study  of  Aeschylus'  Attitude  toward  the 

Presence  of  a  Silent  Actor  during  a  Stasimon     .  9 

First  Device — to  get  rid  of  Danaus 13 

Second  Device — to  get  rid  of  Danaus 14 

Third  Device — for  Danaus'  Recall 15 

Fourth  Device — for  Atossa's  Removal 18 

Fifth    Device — for    Atossa's    Removal 19 

Sixth  Device — for  Eteocles'  Removal       21 

Seventh  Device— for  the  Removal  of  an  olxerrig     .     .  22 
Conclusion  in  regard  to  the  questioned  Devices  for  the               , 

Moving  of  Actors 24^ 

Eighth  Device — to  get  Chorus  into  Orchestra     ...  25 

Ninth  Device — to  get  Chorus  into  Orchestra     ...  27 

Tenth  Device — to  get  Chorus  into  Orchestra         .     .  27 

Eleventh  Device — to  get  Chorus  into  Orchestra     .     .  29 
Conclusion  in  regard  to  the  questioned  Devices  for  the 

Moving  of  the  Chorus 30 

Chapter  II. 

The   Chorus 31 

Composition 31 

Motivation  of  Entrances 34 

Four  examples  of  artistic  Management   (with  three 

contrasting  scenes  from  Euripides) 40 


:                                                               CONTENTS  5 

PAGE 

Eniployinent     for    Introductions    and    two    possible 

Innovations 50 

A  new  Manner  of  Presentation  for  the  Parodos  of 

the  SuppHants 51 

Chapter  III. 

Speeches 56 

Speeches  justifying  Speech  instead  of  /\ction     •     ■     ■  57 

Speeches  used  by  the  Poet  to  justify  long  Narrations  59 

Five  Speeches  justifying  a  previous  Silence     ...  62 
Speeches  in  the  Persians  sacrificing  Illusion  for  the 

sake  of  their  Effect 65 

Speeches  transcending  the  Knowledge  of  the  Speaker  ya 


SOME  ASPECTS  OF 
THE    DRAMATIC   ART   OF  AESCHYLUS 


DEVICES  FOR  MOVEMENTS  OF  ACTORS  AND 
CHORUS. 

Under  this  caption  I  desire  to  discuss  nine  devices  or  mo- 
tives for  movements  of  actors  and  chorus  which  have  been 
called  in  question  by  critics,  and  two^  others  which  will  serve 
for  comparison.  The  questioned  ones  are  found  in  the  four 
earlier  plays.  One  sees^at  a  glance  from  their  small  number  that 


almost  all  of  Aeschylus'  characters  enter,  move  abouLand  depart—- 

ilTaTway  so  natural  that  their  motiyes  have  passed  unchallenged- 

Many  times  the  reason  for  a  givenjiioyement  arose  so  obviously 
^^frcrm  the  situation  That  the  assignment  of  a  reason  was  ren- 
-d€i^tmn^uessary,~^.  1^7  CTytemnestra's  stepping  out  in  the 
— Agamemnon  (855)  to  greet  her  lord.  Otherwise  the  poet 
gave  his  audience  a  reason,"  e.  g.,  on  her  entrance  in  the 
Choephoroi  (734),  in  answer  to  the  chorus  question,  "Whither 

'Devices  7  and  11. 

^This  statement  must  be  understood  in  the  light  of  the  following 
reservation.  In  three  or  four  cases  in  his  earlier  plays  Aeschylus, 
merely  for  scenic  considerations,  brought  on  an  actor  with  naive  free- 
dom ;  that  is  to  say,  in  these  few  cases  he  did  not  feel  constrained  to 
make  clear  just  why  his  actor  should  appear  at  the  given  place  at  the 
given  time. — See  (i)  Atossa's  entrance  (Persians,  159).  Out  of  her 
anxiety  for  Xerxes  she  tells  the  chorus  she  has  come  for  advice.  To 
that  extent  her  coming  is  motived.  But  why  should  she  have  come 
to  the  particular  place,  Darius'  tomb?  (For  a  discussion  on  scenic 
arrangements  in  the  Persians  see  Dignan,  The  Idle  Actor  in  Aeschylus, 
pp.   16  and  17,  where  the  references  are  cited). — See   (2)   Xerxes'  en- 


O  DRAMATIC  ART  OF  AESCHYLUS 

bound,  Kilissa,  dost  thou  pass  the  gate?"  the  nurse  repHed  that 
the  queen  had  sent  her  to  summon  Aigisthus. 

These  questioned  devices  have  hardly  been  noticed  by  the 
editors  (though  it  would  seem  that  points  of  dramatic  interest 
in  the  study  of  drama  are  fully  as  valuable  as  grammatical 
minutii)  ;  they  have,  however,  engaged  the  attention  of  various 
writers^  on  Aeschylus'  literary  art,  and  have  been  styled 
"clumsy,  forced,  transparent  pretexts,"  purely  external  devices 
with  no  or  little  inner  justification.  It  is  generally^  charged 
that  these  devices  are  due  to  convention^  e.g.,  the  fixed  position 
tHrfhe  chorus  in  the  orchestra  during  a  stasimon,  or  to  material 
necessities,  at  times  the  paucity  of  actors,  but  chiefly  the  lack  of 
a  back-scene  in  the  primitive  theatre  for  unobtrusive  coming 
and  going;  and  to  these  charges,  just  in  several  instances,  I 
would  ascribe  their  full  weight.  In  this  chapter,  however,  I 
purpose  to  consider  each  questionable  device  on  its  merits ;  and, 
if  there  is  another  side — an  artistic  side — of  the  case,  to  state 
that  side ;  al^sn  tCLshnw  that  Aeschylus,  the  artist,  waj^  conscious 
ofjJie-^r^bkmsJbeJDQLt^Jiim J  fhat  his  text  proves  this  by  exhibit- 
_ing_traces_of  ..an  efifort  on  his  pait?EQT:Qycr^up"hi«  -stage  limitaru_ 

trance  in  the  same  play  (yo8).  It  is  motived  in  that  the  whole  play 
leads  inevitably  to  this  entrance,  as  its  climax.  But  why  does  the  king 
come  home  by  way  of  Darius'  tomb?  Aeschylus  does  not  tell  us. — 
See  (3)  the  entrance  of  Antigone  and  Ismene  with  the  corpses  in  the 
Septem  (860).  Why  should  they  go  to  the  Acropolis  (where  are  the 
chorus)  rather  than  to  the  royal  palace  (which  must  have  been  off  the 
stage. — See  Dignan,  op.  cit,  p.  19)  ? — See  (4)  Oceanus'  entrance  in 
Prometheus  (285).  Here  perhaps  we  should  take  for  granted  that 
Oceanus  enters  for  the  same  reason  the  Oceanides  assigned  on  their  en- 
trance a  little  earlier,  viz.,  because  they  have  heard  the  unwonted 
sounds. 

^Especially  Richter,  Zur  Dramaturgic  des  Aschylus,  and  Dignan, 
The  Idle  Actor  in  Aeschylus.  Post,  in  The  Dramatic  Art  of  Aeschylus 
(Harvard  Studies,  Vol.  XVI)  criticizes  one  device  (Suppliants,  774- 
775).  For  a  general  answer  to  Dignan  see  a  criticism  of  his  disserta- 
tion by  Allen  in  The  Classical  Quarterly,  October,  1907. 


DE\ICES   FOR   MOVEMENTS   OF   ACTORS  9 

tions  and  to  render  vvhatjwa^in_some_cas_es_2eihaps^ss£n^ 
external^  inner  and  artistic.  _That  he  always  succeeded  no  one, 
(SfoDurse,  can  hold.  But  itremains  true  that  the  mechanical 
and  conventional  in  the  early  stages  of  Aeschylus'  work  have 
"^eerT^ornetimes^so  emphasized  that  ^vhateyer  artistic  touches 
there'are  have  been  overshadowed^  _To  offset  this  one-sided 
criticism  I  desire  partly  to  unveil,  if  I  can,  the  other  side  of 
the  picture — the  artistic  way  in  which  he  met  convention  and 
limitation. 

But  before  entering  upon  this  discussion  I  desire  to  take 
up  an  important  consideration;  for  our  judgment  on  these 
devices,  as  w^e  shall  see,  depends  partly  on  our  knowledge  of 
Aeschylus'  attitude  toward  the  presence  of  a  silent  actor  dur- 
ing a  stasimon.  He  undoubtedly  felt  its  awkward  embarrass- 
ment, as  Dignan'*  intimates  on  several  pages  of  his  disserta- 
tion. He  does  not.  however,  collate  the  plays  of  Aeschylus  for 
evidence. — a  thing  which  I  propose  briefly  to  do.  In  the  Sup- 
pliants, although  Danaus  is  compelled  to  be  a  silent  actor  dur- 
ing the  parodos,"  and  although  he  is  still  present  during  the 
second  stasimon  (apparently  because  there  was  no  pretext  at 
hand  for  his  removal),  he  is  sent  out  in  503  shortly  before  the 
third  stasimon.  Before  the  singing  of  this  choral  song  Pelas- 
gus  also  retires,  leaving  the  stage"  empty.  At  775  Danaus 
again  leaves  just  before  a  stasimon.  In  the  Persians,  Atossa  is 
removed  on  rather  a  strained  pretext  before  the  first  stasimon. 
Had  Aeschylus  not  on  occasion  felt  offense  at  an  actor's 
presence  during  an  ode,  she  might  have  remained  during  this 
stasimon,  as  she  returns  just  after  its  close  in  618.  The  poet 
could  easily  have  kept  her  on  the  stage  by  having  her  bring 
the  necessary  offerings  for  the  dead  on  her  first  coming.     It  is 

'Op.  cit. 

*See  Dignan,  op.  cit.,  p.  15. 

'By  stage  in  this  study  I  mean  the  primitive  speaking  place.  Even 
the  orchestra  might,  therefore,  be  the  "stage." 


lO  DRAMATIC    ART    OF   AESCHYLUS 

true,  she  is  present  during  the  second  choral  song,  where  in- 
deed for  inner  reasons  her  presence  was  needed.  But  here 
Aeschykis  removes  all  embarrassment  by  allowing  her  to  pour 
libations^  while  the  chorus  call  up  Darius.  Again  just  before 
the  last  stasimon  Atossa  leaves — even  at  the  cost  of  a  false 
motive.*  In  the  Septem  it  is  probable  that  no  actor  was  present 
during  a  stasimon.  Dignan"  undertakes  to  prove  that 
Eteocles  was  present  during  the  parodos.  But  the  editors^" 
are  probably  right  in  indicating  his  exit  after  verse  'jy.  This 
movement  is  sufficiently  motived  by  the  messenger's  suggestion 
(57  and  78),  *Tn  view  of  this,  quickly  station  at  the  gates  the 
city's  bravest  men."  Had  Eteocles  been  present  during  the 
entire  ode,  how  could  he  have  refrained  from  reprimanding  the 
chorus  of  maids  sooner, — feeling  as  strongly  as  he  did  the 
folly  of  their  conduct?  In  the  Prometheus  the  Titan,  of 
course,  remained  throughout  the  play ;  but  to  obviate  the 
awkwardness  of  his  silence  during  choral  performances, 
Aeschylus   cut   them   down   to   minimum   proportions.^^      He 

'Just  as  Clytemnestra  was  probably  on  the  stage  busy  with  altar 
preparations  for  sacrifice  during  the  parodos  of  the  Agamemnon.  A 
closer  parallel  is  found  in  the  Choephoroi.  During  the  parodos  Electra 
was  busy  with  the  offerings.  This  is  Richter's  view,  and  the  one  I 
favor.  For  an  opposite  view  see  Dignan,  op.  cit.,  p.  27,  note  48.  Electra 
poured  these  offerings  on  the  grave  during  the  short  choral  ode  that 
followed  (152-163). 

'Of  course  another  reason  for  her  exit  here  is  that  the  poet  does 
not  wish  to  humiliate  her  by  participation  in  the  last  scene.  The  sug- 
gestion in  the  Teuffel-Wecklein  edition  (note  on  v.  908)  that  she  may 
have  reappeared  as  a  dumb  character  in  the  exit,  is  preposterous. 

°0p.  cit.,  p.  20. 

'"Paley,  Flagg,  Verrall  and  Wecklein.  The  scholiast  agrees  with 
these  editors. 

"This  view  seems  more  satisfactory  than  the  one  which  attributes 
these  short  odes  to  a  revision  after  the  poet's  death,  and  also  seems  a 
better  reason  than  the  one  Dignan,  op.  cit.,  p.  21    (citing  Masqueray, 


DEVICES   FOR    MOVEMENTS  OF   ACTORS  II 

turned  the  parodos  into  a  komnios  between  Prometheus  and 
the  chorus.  The  first  stasimon  is  short,  and  concerns  only  the 
hero  of  the  play.^^  The  second  stasimon  has  only  two  strophies 
and  antistrophies,  and  is  addressed  to  the  Titan,  thus  relieving 
hmi  of  any  embarrassment.  The  last  stasimon  is  the  shortest 
of  all,  with  only  strophe,  antistrophe  and  epode.  In  the 
Agamemnon,  Cassandra  is  silent  during  a  stasimon.  This 
was  due  quite  as  much  to  the  conditions  of  the  plot^^  as  to 
the  limitations^"'  of  the  theatre.  The  poet,  of  course,  would 
not,  if  he  could,  have  lifted  that  veil  of  silence,  as  it  is  prepar- 
ing the  way  by  very  contrast  for  the  wonderful  scene  to  fol- 
low. In  the  Choephoroi,  Electra  does  not  furnish  us  during 
the  parodos  with  a  clear  case  of  the  idle  actor. ^'  Much  of 
the  ode  may  have  been  sung  before  the  chorus  reached  the 
orchestra,  and  during  the  latter  part  of  the  parodos  Electra  was 
busy  with  the  ofiferings.^'^  During  the  following  ode  (151- 
163)  she  was  present  pouring  libations.  Such  employment 
would  have  relieved  the  scene  of  any  embarrassment,  but 
this  choral  song  is  too  short  to  be  reckoned  in  this  connection. 
In  the  Eumenides,  clinging  to  the  base  of  Athene's  statue, 
Orestes  was  present  on  the  stage  during  the  second  parodos 

Theorie  des  formes  lyriques  de  la  tragedie  grecque,  p.  79),  gives:  "The 
brevity  of  the  choral  parts  may  be  due  simply  to  the  unimportance  of 
the  chorus  and  the  supreme  interest  of  the  central  figure."  Dignan 
adds,  however,  on  the  next  page :  "The  situation  is,  of  course,  excep- 
tional— Prometheus  must  remain  throughout ;  but  in  various  ways  the 
awkwardness  of  his  presence  during  choral  passages  is  rendered  less 
noticeable."  He  then  cites  about  the  same  evidence  as  I  shall  give  in 
support  of  my  view. 

'^This  affords  the  best  example  of  the  Pathetic  Fallacy  in  Aeschylus. 

"See  Allen,  loc.  cit.,  p.  271. 

"Dignan's  view.,  op.  cit.,  p.  26. 

"See  Allen,  loc.  cit.,  p.  272.  Dignan,  op.  cit.,  p.  27,  is  right,  however, 
in  saying  that  Electra  enters  with  the  chorus. 

''See  Richter,  op.  cit.,  p.  215. 


12  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

a.nd  the  two  succeeding  odes.^^  This  arrangement  Aeschylus 
^id  not  try  to  avoid,  one  can  readily  see,  as  it  was  the  only 
natural  one.  The  Erinyes  and  their  victim  must  be  together 
until  the  verdict  delivers  Orestes  from  their  hands. 

To  sum  up  Aeschylus'  attitude  toward  the  presence  of  a 
silent  actor  during  a  stasimon : — xA.eschylus  allowed  Orestes 
on  the  stage  during  lyrical  parts  because  his  staying,  far  from 
causing  embarrassment,  was  demanded  by  the  conditions  of  the 
plot.  Conditions  of  the  plot  also  demanded  Cassandra's  silence 
during  the  stasimon  in  the  Agamemnon.  Atossa,  Clytemnestra 
and  Electra  (the  latter  during  a  short  ode,  at  any  rate)  were 
all  silent  actors, — but  with  stage  business  which  relieved  em- 
barrassment. Of  such  instances  of  the  silent  actor  our  poet 
evidently  did  not  try  to  rid  himself.  No  other  instances,  how- 
ever, are  found  in  the  Persians,  Septem,  Agamemnon, 
Choephoroi  and  Eumenides.  In  the  Prometheus,  moreover,  he 
consciously  shunned  the  idle  actor  (who  would  be  Prometheus, 
were  there  a  long  stasimon)  ;  and  we  may  be  sure  of  this,  for 
he  has  taken  pains  to  reduce  the  choral  parts  to  a  minimum 
reached  in  no  other  extant  drama.  Even  in  the  Suppliants,  al- 
though his  earliest  extant  play,  if,  notwithstanding  that  fact, 
we  may  judge  from  the  cumulative  evidence  of  all  the  plays, 

"So  the  schol. ;  r\  \.ikv  'A^riva  dm~i>i^ev  euxQemaai  biyMoxaq,  6  be 
'OpeoTTig  IxETEucov  nEVEi,  at  6e  'EQivvEg  cpQOUQoOaiv  amov.  Verrall,  in 
his  Appendix  I  (p.  185),  dissents,  and  asserts  that  Orestes  left  the 
scene;  adding  that  the  directions  (vv.  485  ff.)  given  by  Athene  before 
her  departure,  that  the  parties  are  to  summon  their  witnesses  and 
evidence,  not  only  point  to  Orestes'  exit  but  also  to  that  of  the 
chorus.  Sidgwick  (see  his  note  on  566)  agrees  that  Orestes  left 
the  stage.  But  consider  the  evidence  of  xovbt  (493)  which  Verrall 
wrongly  translates  "yon";  also  the  words  spoken  by  Orestes  just 
after  his  arrival  at  Athena's  temple,  auxou  (pvX6.Ga(o\  dixM-Evto  xeXog  8(xTig 
(243).  If  Orestes  went  out  for  Apollo,  the  god  should  return  with 
him ;  but  Verrall  makes  Apollo  return  some  verses  after  Orestes — 
an  arrangement  inconsistent  with  his  argument. 


DEVICES   FOR    MOVEMENTS  OF   ACTORS  I3 

and  add  the  weight  of  this  evidence  to  the  fact  that  in  the 
play  itself  the  stage  was  empty  of  an  actor  for  two  choral 
odes,  Aeschylus  tried  to  avoid  this  silent  actor.  But  in  two 
places  he  seems  to  have  been  unable  to  find  a  satisfactory  pre- 
text for  Danaus'  withdrawal,  and  he  accordingly  remains  on 
the  stage.  In  Aeschylus,  therefore,  the  strictly  lyrical  and 
speaking  parts  of  drama  were  v/ell  differentiated ;  and  while 
not  always  so,  were  usually  mutually  exclusive. 

I  shall  now  discuss  the  delayed  devices  in  the  order  of 
their  appearance  in  the  plays.  I  call  these  passages  devices, 
rather  than  motives,  as  they  may  or  may  not  contain  a  motive 
arising  from  the  internal  development  of  the  drama.  If,  on 
the  one  hand,  they  are  in  a  high  sense  artistic,  they  will,  of 
course,  contain  a  real  inner  reason  of  the  poet,  although  there 
may  be  an  even  more  compelling  outer  one ;  if,  on  the  other, 
they  are  of  a  low  artistic  value,  in  them  we  shall  find  a  pretext 
only,  with  the  real  external  reason  for  their  appearance  but 
poorly  concealed. 

First  Device — to  get  rid  of  Danaus  (Suppliants,  480  ff.). 
— Danaus  is  sent  off  the  stage  to  lay  olive  branches  on  the 
city  altars,  that,  as  the  king  says,  the  people  may  know 
of  the  arrival  of  suppliants  and  be  moved  to  kindly  feelings. 
Dignan^®  says :  "The  device  for  his  removal  is  a  transparent 
one,  for  the  pretext  on  which  he  is  removed  is  forced."  Again^^ 
he  speaks  of  it  as  a  "most  artificial  pretext."  That  the  device 
is  used  for  an  external  reason  in  part  at  least,  i.e.,  to  get 
Danaus  off  the  stage  before  the  stasimon,  is  true.  But  he  was 
surely  sent  on  this  errand  for  internal  reasons  of  the  drama  as 
well.  No  doubt  the  king  did  want  a  sentiment  aroused  in  fa- 
vor of  the  girls  before  he  spoke  on  their  behalf.  In  portray- 
ing a  king  so  careful  of  the  popular  will,  Aeschylus  is  guilty 
of  an  anachronism,  we  may  grant,  but  one  that  may  be  easily 

"Op.  cit.,  p.  15. 
"P.  31- 


14  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

pardoned,  for  it  was  the  only  kind  of  king  that  could  have 
pleased  his  audience.  What  more  natural  for  such  a  king  than 
to  dispatch  Danaus  on  such  an  errand?  By  what  touch,  too, 
could  the  poet  better  paint  good  judgment  in  the  king's  char- 
acter? Psychologically  the  king  was  right.  Danaus'  strange 
presence  in  the  streets  of  Argos,  and  his  suppliant  branches 
with  their  silent  appeal,  would  create  just  that  atmosphere  of 
sympathy  needed,  when  the  assembly  should  convene.-*^  The 
conclusion  may  well  be,  then,  not  that  Aeschylus  used  here 
an  external  device  with  slight  or  no  internal  justification,  but 
rather  that  he  has  employed  as  motive  a  king's  request,  called 
for  by  inner  grounds, — at  such  time,  however,  in  the  dramatic 
economy  of  his  play  that  it  might  serve  an  external  need  as 
well,  viz.,  the  removal  of  an  actor  before  a  stasimon. 

Second  Device — to  get  rid  of  Danaus  (Suppliants,  726  ff. 
and  774-775). — After  775  Danaus  again  leaves  the  stage  on 
the  pretext  of  getting  the  promised  help,  for  the  pursuers  have 
already  arrived  in  the  harbor.  Post"^  makes  this  criticism : 
"Once  in  the  play  we  find  Aeschylus  put  at  a  disadvantage  by 
the  limitation  to  only  two  actors.  In  order  that  the  herald 
and  the  king  may  be  on  the  stage  at  the  same  time,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  Danaus  leave,  and  so  at  775  he  makes  a  conventional 
excuse  of  going  once  more  to  plead  with  the  Argives."  Now 
there  are  evidently  two  external  reasons  for  such  departure : 
( I )  that  the  stage  may  be  unembarrassed  with  a  silent  actor 
during  the  stasimon ;  (2)  that  the  poet  may  have  his  requisite 
two  actors  for  the  dialogue  which  follows.  But  there 
is  also  an  important  inner  reason  for  his  leaving.  Seeing  that 
there  was  a  goodly  band  in  pursuit  (see  especially  721), 
Danaus  must  have  felt  his  inability  to  meet  them  single-handed. 
He,  therefore,  wished  the  king  informed  at  once,  that  he  might 

^Tucker,  in  his  edition  of  this  play,  observes  that  the  king  knew 
that  kindly  feelings  would  "later  crystallize  into  a  decree." 
^'Loc.  cit.,  p.  34. 


DEVICES   FOR    MOVEMENTS  OF   ACTORS  IS 

bring  troops  immediately,  even  if  by  so  doing  he  must  leave^^ 
his  daughters  for  the  moment  unprotected.-^  Of  course,  if 
Aeschykis  at  this  time  had  been  able  to  employ  a  third  actor, " 
Danaus  would  have  returned  with  the  king  and  been  present 
at  the  rebuff  of  the  Egyptians.  The  statement  that  the  ex- 
ternal reason  here  for  his  departure  is  stronger  than  the  in- 
ternal, is  undoubtedly  true.  The  limited  number  of  actors 
simply  compelled  his  exit.  The  king's  entrance  with  help 
might  have  been  effected  by  some  other  means ;  e.  g.,  he  might 
have  been  near  by  when  the  girls  made  outcry,  and  entered, 
stating  that  their  shouts  had  brought  him.  For  those, 
however,  who  are  as  willing  to  see  art  as  convention — and 
art  in  convention,  an  important  point  here  is  this :  Aeschylus, 
under  the  necessity  of  removing  Danaus,  does  so  on  strong  in- 
ner grounds  which  are  quite  natural.  Herein  he  showed  his  art, 
by  making  at  this  juncture  of  his  drama  so  happy  a  meeting 
between  outer  and  inner  reason. 

Third  Device — for  Danaus'  recall  (Suppliants,  968  ff.). — 
There  is  a  motive  in  the  last  part  of  the  Suppliants  which  has 

"Of  course  the  very  early  convention  of  the  drama  probably  made 
it  absolutely  impossible  for  the  girls  to  accompany  their  father,  thus 
leaving  the  orchestra  and  making  a  change  of  scene.  The  only  well 
established  scene  change  in  Aeschylus'  extant  plays  is  in  the  Eumenides. 
A  few  others,  however,  have  been  proposed  which  I  shall  discuss  in 
another  connection. 

^'A  careful  reading  of  the  text  shows  that  the  herald  was  attended. 
The  sons  of  Aegyptus  were  not  with  the  herald,  as  he  says  (in  928) 
that  he  will  return  to  make  report  to  them.  Then,  too,  had  they  been 
present,  the  chorus  would  not  continually  have  used  the  second  person 
singular  in  their  address.  The  herald,  however,  must  have  been  ac- 
companied by  some  swarthy  attendants.  Hence  the  terror  aroused  in 
the  girls,  and  hence  the  herald's  threat  of  violence.  See  Tucker's 
edition  for  a  like  note  on  this  passage.  Richter,  op.  cit.,-'  pp.  20-21, 
takes  about  the  same  position.  ^ 

'"See  Dignan,  op.  cit.,  note  2^  at  bottom  of  p.  15. 


l6  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

been  questioned  by  at  least  one  critic.  Richter-^  argues  that 
the  action  of  the  play  comes  to  an  end  at  verse  965 ;  that  the 
dialogue,  which  follows  and  calls  for  Danaus'  return,  is  mere 
patchwork,  the  question  of  a  dwelling  place  being  a  matter 
uninteresting  to  the  audience,  and  one  which  Danaus  (when 
he  does  return)  does  not  answer;  that  this  question,  therefore, 
is  only  a  poor  device  of  the  poet  for  bringing  back  the  father, 
who,  as  already  suggested,  would  have  returned  with  the  king 
in  the  scene  with  the  Egyptian  had  not  the  poet  been  limited 
to  two  actors.-**  He  further  adds  that  Aeschylus  hardly  had 
enough  material  for  a  whole  play,  and  accordingly  added 
verses  980  ff.,  for  which  there  is  no  poetic  justification ;  that 
interesting  episodes  are  much  better  than  tiresome  unmotived 
speeches ;  and  that  Aeschylus  bungled  here  from  a  pure 
dramatic  standpoint,  though  we  are  compensated  by  the  ex- 
cellence of  the  final  choral  song  and  processional  exit.^''  We 
may  grant  at  once  that  our  poet  was  unable  to  introduce 
Danaus  with  the  king  on  account  of  the  paucity  of  his  actors ; 
that  Danaus'  presence  was  absolutely  needed  to  bring  the  play 
to  a  satisfactory  conclusion ;  that  the  question  of  residence 
referred  by  the  girls  to  their  father  is  the  device  which  Aeschy- 
lus used  for  Danaus'  recall.  Now,  is  it,  or  is  it  not,  artistic? 
Did  a  purely  external  reason  demand  it,  or,  now  that 
Danaus  is  absent,  did  inner  grounds  call  for  the  motive 
which  led  to  the  conversation  between  father  and  daughters  in 
the  last  scene?  The  passage  evidently  must  be  understood 
in  the  light  of  the  words  which  precede  and  follow — "Send 
hither  our  father,  doubty  Danaus,  to  plan  for  us 

^'Op.  cit.,  pp.  121-122. 

^The  herald  probably  changed  his  dress  and  came  back  as  Danaus. 
See  Rees,  Rule  of  Three  Actors,  p.  30. 

•'I  feel  it  necessary  to  state  these  grounds  of  objection  in  full,  as 
our  judgment  on  them  vitally  affects  our  estimate  of  the  Suppliants 
as  an  early  art  form. 


DEVICES   FOR    MOVEMENTS  OF   ACTORS  1 7 

every  one  is  ready  to  cast  reproach  upon  strange  folk ;  but 
may  the  best  prevail."  The  question  about  a  place  of  habita- 
tion, therefore,  is  typical ;  only  one  of  the  many  questions  in- 
troduced by  their  surroundings  which  they  would  refer  to 
their  father.  He  had  been  their  constant  companion  on  the 
long  sea  voyage,  the  leader  of  their  flight  thus  far, — so  they 
would  not  enter  a  strange  city  without  him.  Richter  states 
that  we  are  not  interested  in  the  dwelling-place  question ;  but 
surely  the  audience  was  interested  in  it  to  the  slight  exten.t 
to  which  it  was  introduced — they  certainly  wanted  to  see  the 
girls  safely  settled — and  quite  interested  in  the  problem  for 
which  it  stands, — their  general  well-being,  for  which  a  father's 
presence  was  needed. 

Again  Danaus'  speech  (980  ff.)  is  not  tiresome,  but  to  the 
point  and  interesting.  At  its  beginning  he  tells  the  audience 
something  new ;  that  an  escort  of  spearmen  has  been  accorded 
him  for  his  honor  and  protection.  Then  his  words  of  warning 
to  the  girls  about  conduct  (which  Richter  says  are  uncalled 
for)  are  quite  natural,  as  well  as  beautifully  expressed;  for 
it  was  a  primitive  age,  and  they  were  strange  maids  in  a 
strange  land.  Pelasgus,  it  is  true,  had  already  assured  them 
of  his  and  the  state's  protection ;  but  they  also  needed  paternal 
care.  These  fatherly  admonitions  are  just  as  much  in  place 
here  as  are  verses  of  a  like  tenor  in  an  earlier  part  of  the  play 
(197-199).  There  is,  therefore,  a  natural  justification  for 
these  words, — and  a  poetic  one  as  well,  for  they  furnish  the 
poet  a  theme  for  several  exquisite  verses  (996-1009).  Fur- 
thermore, Danaus  does  handle  the  question  of  habitation 
on  his  return  ;  he  does  not  directly  answer  it  on  the  stage 
( how  could  he,  before  going  into  the  city  and  examining  the 
abodes  in  question?),  but  he  repeats  the  information  of  Pelas- 
gus (doubtless  ignorant  that  the  king  had  already  given  it), 
that  homes  of  the  people  and  Pelasgus'  own  are  at  their  dis- 
posal— rent   free.     This  indicates  that   this  and   probably  all 


l8  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

Other  questions  pertaining  to  the  girls'  welfare  are  in  a  father's 
hands;  and  this  is  just  the  assurance  a  friendly  audience 
wanted  at  the  end  of  the  play. 

The  conclusion,  then,  is  that  Aeschylus  did  not  seriously 
bungle  here  from  a  pure  dramatic  standpoint,  for  there  were 
inner  grounds  for  Danaus'  return ;  that  the  father's  speech 
would  have  been  essentially  as  it  is,  had  he  been  present  all 
along,  i.  e.,  that  the  poet  did  not  give  it  to  him  simply  to  justify 
his  recall ;  that,  moreover,  his  words  further  the  situation 
and  bring  to  a  more  satisfying  conclusion  the  reception  of 
the  Danaids  in  Argos,  which  in  fact  is  the  subject  of  the 
drama. 

Fourth  Dci'icc — for  Atossa's  removal  (Persians,  522-524). 
— Here  Aeschylus  evidently  wished  to  remove  Atossa  before 
the  stasimon,  and  he  gives  her  this  pretext  for  going  back  to 
the  palace  (which  was  off  the  stage)  :  "First  I  wish  to  make 
prayer  to  the  gods, — afterwards  I  shall  return  with  libation^ 
for  the  dead."  Evidently  he  fails  in  his  attempt  here  to  assign 
a  real  inner  motive.-^  No  inner  motive  sends  her  off  only  to 
return  in  a  few  minutes  at  the  conclusion  of  the  ode.  The 
necessary  offerings  could  have  been  brought  with  her  on  her 
first  appearance,-'*  and  she  could  have  prayed  to  all  the  major 
gods  at  the  tomb  before  pouring  the  libations.  Here  Aeschylus 
(though  he  tried,  as  the  text  shows)  could  arrange  no  happy 
meeting  between  an  outer  and  an  inner  end,  and  is  guilty  of 
poor  motivation.  It  is,  of  course,  easy  to  pardon  him  on  ac- 
count of  the  meager  and  awkward  scenic  arrangements  at  his 
disposal. 

^''Dignan,  op.  cit.,  p.  25,  says  of  this  and  of  the  next  device  for 
Atossa's  removal :  "Twice  she  is  explicitly  sent  off  on  clumsy  pretexts." 

^It  has  been  suggested  that  Atossa  did  not  have  the  sacrifice  in 
mind  when  she  left  the  palace  the  first  time.  But  is  it  not  more  than 
likely  that  the  queen  carried  offerings  for  Darius  on  most  of  her  visits 
to  his  tomb — even  without  special  occasion? 


DEVICES   FOR    MOVEMENTS  OF  ACTORS  I9 

Fifth  Device — for  Atossa's  removal  (Persians,  849-851). 
False  motivation. — In  the  Persians  (849-851)  we  have  a  case 
of  so-called  false^"  motivation.  Atossa  leaves  the  stage  on  the 
pretext  of  meeting  her  son  and  giving  him  whole  clothing  to 
replace  his  rent  garments.  This  she  does  at  Darius'  sugges- 
tion (829-831).  Darius  also  directs  the  chorus  (in  the  same 
three  verses)  to  admonish  Xerxes  to  cease  from  presumptuous 
and  godless  ways.  These  two  directions  of  the  ghost  are  no- 
where carried  out,  although  according  to  Atossa's  words  she 
leaves  the  stage  to  carry  out  her  part  of  the  instructions. 
Verse  1030,  Jte^cAov  8'  e:t8QQT]^'  em  ounqpoQa  xaxoti,  makes  it 
unlikely  that  Aeschylus  wished  his  audience  to  take  for  grant- 
ed the  fulfillment  of  Atossa's  words  during  the  interval  of  the 
choral  ode.  The  torn  robe  would  naturally  be  the  one  Xerxes 
has  on,  as  there  could  have  been  no  attendant^^  (cf.  1036)  to 
carry  the  tattered  garment  he  had  just  cast  off  (Hermann's 
view^^).  Furthermore,  ever  since  the  battle  of  Salamis  the  story 
of  Xerxes'  passion  and  rent  robes  had  passed  current  in  Greece, 
whenever  the  history  of  that  battle  was  the  subject  of  discus- 
sion. Aeschylus,  therefore,  when  he  brought  on  his  drama 
eight  years  later,  could  hardly  have  done  other  than  introduce 
the  Xerxes  of  the  Greek  imagination.^^  As  to  the  other  sug- 
gestion of  Darius — the  chorus  make  no  effort  to  carry  it  out. 
They  engage  in  one  long  "howling  duet"  with  the  man  who  has 
"crowded  Hades  with  Persians" — there  is  no  admonition  to 
sane-mindedness — and  with  this  scene  the  play  ends.     These 

'"False,  of  course,  when  we  judge  the  poet, — not  when  we  judge 
Atossa.  One  can,  therefore,  defend  false  motivation  here,  as  in  such  a 
case  the  character  is  not  guilty  of  deception  or  untruth. 

"The  statement  in  the  Teuffel-Wecklein  edition  that  several  war- 
riors accompanied  him,  is  wrong. 

"See  the  second  volume  of  his  edition  (p.  250),  where  he  says  that 
Xerxes  entered  with  royal  garments,  a  servant  following  with  the  tat- 
tered ones. 

°°For  the  opposite  view  see  in  Prickard's  edition  his  note  on  906. 


20  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

difficulties  have  led  two  critics.  Kochly  and  Bergk,  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  original  end  of  the  play  has  been  lost.  Rich- 
ter^*  tries  to  lay  this  failure  of  agreement  between  promise 
and  fulfillment,  in  large  measure,  to  the  episodic  character  of 
the  Darius  scene.  He  says  that  the  actor  who  took  Atossa's 
part  was  also  to  take  that  of  Xerxes ;  adding,  however,  that 
this  is  only  a  partial  excuse  for  the  poet,  since  Atossa's  exit 
should  be  free  from  all  objection.  To  the  writer,  the  scene  in 
which  Darius  figures  does  not  seem  in  any  real  sense  an 
episode.  Aeschylus  is  guilty — and,  I  think,  intentionally,^^  of 
false  motivation.  Atossa's  departure,  in  order  to  shield  her 
boy  from  what  disgrace  she  could,  seemed  to  Aeschylus  so 
natural  at  the  time  of  the  mother's  exit,  so  in  keeping  with 
her  character,  that  he  adopted  this  inner  reason — even  at 
the  cost  of  its  non-fulfillment.  There  were  two  external  rea- 
sons for  the  queen's  removal :  one,  due  to  the  poet's  preference 
— that  she  might  not  be  present  during  the  stasimon ;  another 
(relatively  external),  due  to  the  demands  of  the  plot — that 
the  queen  might  not  be  humiliated  by  participation  in  the  last 
scene. ^®  As  was  his  wont,  Aeschylus  balanced  these  outer  rea- 
sons with  an  inner  one — so  plausible  and  satisfying  that,  as  we 
shall  see,  his  literary  conscience  seems  to  have  required  no- 
thing further — intention  fulfilled.  When  Xerxes  entered  in 
his  tattered  condition,  the  spectator  thought,  "Well,  the  good 
mother  didn't  have  time  to  meet  him,"  and  with  that — the  mat- 
ter ended.  The  fact  is,  in  this  case,  false  motivation  was,  per- 
haps, justifiable  from  both  the  artistic  and  moral  standpoint ;  it 

^*See  op.  cit.,  p.  19 :  "Es  liegt  eben  im  Wesen  der  Episode  dass  den 
Anregungen  zur  Handlung  in  dem  weiteren  Fortgange  des  Dramas 
keine  Folge  gegeben  wird." 

'*He  did  not  intend  for  Atossa  to  carry  out  her  purpose,  so  he  pur- 
posely puts  in  her  lips  jtEiQaao^ai. 

'^Dignan,  op.  cit.,  note  32,  pp.  18-19,  says  that  had  she  been  allowed 
to  remain,  "she  would  have  disturbed  the  balance  of  one  to  one,"  and 
that  this  external  cause  was  the  chief  reason  for  her  removal. 


DEVICES   FOR    MOVEMENTS  OF   ACTORS  21 

relieved  the  situation  at  this  juncture  in  the  Persians  admirably 
and  in  a  way  that  leaves  little  to  be  desired.  The  poet  would 
paint  Atossa  favorably,  Xerxes  unfavorably.  The  queen,  there- 
fore, must  leave  with  the  expressed  intention  of  shielding  her 
boy,  but  she  must  not  carry  it  out — there  must  not  be  time. 
The  Persian  monarch  must  enter,  in  plight  as  pitiable  out- 
wardly as  inwardly,  and  in  utter  humiliation,  balance  the  terror 
he  had  inspired  so  short  a  time  before. 

Sixth  Device — for  Eteocles  removal  (Septem,  283) — and 
the  same  device  (Septem,  57-58). — An  instance  of  alleged 
false  motivations^  may  be  found  in  the  Septem  (283).  Eteocles 
gives  as  his  pretext  for  leaving  the  stage  before  the  stasimon 
his  determination  tn  "go  with  other  six  champions  and  meet 
the  enemy."  This  device  contains  a  splendid  inner  motive. 
But  after  the  choral  ode  he  comes  on  the  stage  again,  without 
the  assignment  of  any  reason  as  to  why  he  has  not  carried 
out  his  intention,  to  hear  his  messenger's  report.  It  is  only 
on  its  conclusion  that  he  goes  forth  to  victory  and  death.  The 
fact  is,  he  probably  left  the  stage  at  verse  78  on  the  same 
pretext^" — to  carry  out  the  messenger's  suggestion  (57-58)  : 
"In  view  of  this,  quickly  stations  at  the  gate  the  city's  bravest 
men."  This  triple  use  of  a  motive  (for  it  is  again  used  on 
his  final  exit)  which  could,  under  ordinary  circumstances  at 
least,  be  used  only  once,  seems  to  have  given  Aeschylus  no 
offense. "'^  Indeed  it  need  give  us  little,  if  we  get  Aeschylus' 
probable  point  of  view.  We  must  remember  that  Eteocles 
was  interrupted  while  actually  carrying  out  his  task,  in  each 
case ;  first,  by  the  outcries  of  the  maidens,  and  second,  by  the 

"See  Richter.  op.  cit.,  p.  44.  I  hope  the  preceding  discussion  has 
shown  that  false  motivation  is  not  in  every  case  necessarily  a  very 
serious  blemish  in  dramatic  technique,  even  if  proved. 

^So  Paley,  Verrall,  Flagg,  Tucker  and  Wecklein  in  their  editions. 
For  an  opposite  view  see  Dignan,  op.  cit.,  p.  20. 

"'For,  had  he  felt  it  a  blunder  the  second  time  he  used  it,  there  is  no 
likelihood  he  would  have  repeated  it. 


22  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

report  of  the  herald,  who  might  naturally  enough  come  back 
to  the  acropolis  (where  he  left  the  king)  to  make  report/'^ 
These  three  reasons  for  his  exit  were  given  in  good  faith, 
therefore,  although  their  repetition  in  this  way  may  seen  to 
us  a  little  awkward,  for  Aeschylus  gives  us  no  hint,  as  we 
might  expect,  of  interruption  and  resumption.  We  conclude, 
then,  that  our  poet  cannot  fairly  be  accused  of  false  motivation 
here ;  nor  can  a  charge  be  made  of  any  serious  impropriety. 

Seventh  Device — for  the  removal  of  the  6ixixr]g  (Choeph. 
889). — False  motivation. — We  come  now  to  another  device 
with  intention  unfulfilled.  False  motivation  it  is,  and  again 
an  example  of  its  use — so  admirable  that  we  almost  feel 
that  false  motivation  can  justify  itself — at  least  in  Aeschylus. 
The  poet  does  not  wish  the  device  fulfilled,  as  that  would  spoil 
the  external  purpose  of  its  utterance ;  yet  it  was  the  most  nat- 
ural thing  to  be  uttered  at  the  time,  as  we  shall  see.  The  outer 
motive  is,  of  course,  to  get  rid  of  the  servant;*^  and  when 
were  outer  and  inner  motive  ever  more  happily  combined  ?     It 

^"So  Verrall's  note  on  269  (283  in  the  traditional  text)  :  "Eteocles 
now  hurries  to  resume  preparations  commenced  after  verse  78  and  in- 
terrupted by  the  cries  of  the  maidens  at  180." 

*'The  scholiast  tells  us  that  the  purpose  of  the  device  is  external — 
to  avoid  the  necessity  for  four  actors,  enabling  the  actor  representing 
the  servant  to  take  the  part  of  Pylades  a  little  later.  This  may  be  the 
correct  view.  Richter,  op.  cit.,  p.  217,  objects  that  only  five  verses  in- 
tervene between  the  servant's  speech  (886)  and  Orestes'  reappearance 
(892),  probably  rightly  assuming  (Verrall  to  the  contrary)  that  Pylades 
accompanied  his  friend ;  and  that  only  two  verses  really  intervene  to 
give  lapse  of  time,  as  the  device  for  removal  does  not  come  until  889 ; 
and  his  objections  carry  much  weight,  although  it  should  be  remember- 
ed that  it  would  require  little  time  to  change  an  upper  garment  and 
mask  (see  Capp's  review  in  Am.  Jour.  Arch.,  1905,  p.  496  flf.),  if  that 
were  all  the  change  an  ancient  "make  up"  demanded.  Most  of  the 
critics,  however,  as  Elmsley  and  Beer,  think  the  full  thirteen  verses 
are  consumed,  and  regard  thirteen  trimeters  as  representing  the  mini- 
mum time  for  such  a  change.     See  Rees,  op.  cit.,  p.  51.     There  are  two 


DEVICES  FOR   MOVEMENTS  OF  ACTORS  23 

is  quite  what  we  would  expect  a  woman  of  strong  masculine 
character  Hke  Clytemestra,  to  cry  out:  boir\  xiq  dv8QoxnfJTa 
jreXexvv  6)g  taxog.  Compare  a  like  masculine  touch  in  the 
Agamemnon,  1421-1425  (especially  verse  1423).  A  further 
reading  of  the  play  shows,  however,  that  the  servant  did  not 
carry  out  the  suggestion.  Indeed,  his  re-appearance  was  the 
last  thing  the  poet  desired,  as  he  wished  Clytemnestra  and 
Orestes  (with  Pylades,  who  was  but  a  mute  save  for  the  speak- 
ing of  three  verses)  to  be  alone  in  the  solemn  scene  of  judg- 
ment that  follows.     No  audience,  in  this  case,  would  demand 


other  possible  cases  of  a  quick  change  from  one  character  to  another  In 
Aeschylus :  one  in  the  Suppliants,  if  we  assume  there  were  only  two 
actors  (see  Rees,  p.  30),  where  the  king  would  come  back  (after  five 
verses)  as  Danaus;  and  another  in  Prometheus,  if  we  assume  a  dummy 
(a  view  objectionable  to  me)  where  Hephaestus  has  seven  verses  dur- 
ing which  to  leave  the  stage,  get  to  the  rear  of  the  lay-figure,  and  ap- 
pear in  his  new  role.  Inasmuch  as  processional  arrangements  probably 
gave  quite  an  interval  of  time  in  the  Suppliants,  and  no  change  of 
costume  was  called  for  in  the  Prometheus,  the  actors  in  each  would 
probably  have  had  all  the  time  they  needed.  All  this  discussion  is 
aside  the  mark,  however,  if  Rees  is  right  in  holding  that  the  rule  of 
three  actors  simply  forbade  a  fourth  speaking  person,  the  Greek  stage 
manager  usually  distributing  the  roles  to  a  suitable  number  of  dif- 
ferent actors.  Granting  that  he  has  discredited  the  old  tradition,  which 
has  asserted  the  limitation  of  the  number  of  actors,  Aeschylus  had 
more  than  three  actors  at  his  disposal  in  the  Choephoroi,  and  the  pas- 
sage under  discussion  is  greatly  simplified.  In  that  case  the  device  still 
serves  for  the  removal  of  the  servant,  as  his  later  presence  on  the  stage 
is  in  the  highest  degree  undesirable ;  but  he  need  not  and  does  not  re- 
turn (after  a  character  change)  as  Pylades. 

A  possible  objection  against  interpreting  the  device  in  the  way  I 
have,  might  be  that  the  oIxetti?,  being  an  i^ayytkog,  would  need 
no  motive  for  exit.  I  will  state  in  reply  that  the  situation  here  is  a 
very  unusual  one.  The  queen  herself  is  in  extreme  danger,  as  this  ser- 
vant must  know.  Without  Clytemnestra's  request,  he  would  surely 
have  remained  on  the  stage.  He  might  even  have  offered  help  to  his 
mistress,  thus  hindering  the  action. 


24  DRAMATIC  ART  OF  AESCHYLUS 

fulfillment  or  take  offense.  The  servant  must  go  and — stay. 
The  queen  must  cry  out,  "Bring  me  an  axe."  No  other  words 
of  hers  would  equally  suit  for  her  first  utterance  after  the  in- 
formation, "The  dead  are  slaying  the  living" — a  paradox  she 
immediately  comprehends.  In  other  words,  as  we  see  from 
this  passage  and  the  one  like  it  in  the  Persians,  there 
were  occasionally  exigencies  in  the  early  drama  where  noth- 
ing else  could  so  well  meet  the  need  of  a  situation  as  the  as- 
signment of  the  so-called  false  (but  inner)  motive;  and 
Aeschylus  should  receive  no  little  credit  in  both  cases  for  his 
invention  of  real  inner  reasons  for  exit,  even  at  the  cost 
of  false  motivation. 

Summing  up,  then,  our  study  of  these  questioned  devices*^ 
for  the  moving  of  an  actor,  both  those  with  a  true  and  the 
two  with  a  false  motivation,  w:^  find  that  Aeschy^lusjiasgiven 
us  in  every  case^but-one  (tfve  fourth  in  this  study)  a  igal  innei^ 
reason- — one  which  naturally  grows  out_of  the  situation^ijself^ 
"Considering  the  fact  that,  in  his  early  work,  he  was  severely 
handicapped  by  the  paucity  of  his  actors,  and  by  the  lack  of 
a  convenient  background  for  entrances  and  exits,  he  was  in 
an  unusual  degree  successful  in  discovering  a  happy  meeling 
^ptace:far  out^r  an4  infter  ^soti^e.  Accordingly,  the  opposite 
side  of  the  picture  reveals  in  every  case  ( i )  a  conscious- 
ness on  the  part  of  the  poet  of  the  difficulty  confronted;  (2) 
an  endeavor  to  artistically  meet  it. 

Before  closing  this  chapter  it  may  be  well,  in  this  connec- 
tion, to  discuss  the  devices  in  the  earlier  plays  for  choral  move- 
ments into  the  orchestra ;  as  it  seems  desirable  to  handle  them 
here,  rather  than  in  the  chapter  on  the  chorus,  to  which  they 

*'It  has,  of  course,  been  noticed  that  these  questioned  devices  occur, 
with  but  one  minor  exception,  in  the  earlier  plays.  Aeschylus'  problems 
were  greatly  simplified  when  he  was  given  (or  himself  devised)  a 
background  (palace  or  temple)  suitable  for  unmotived  entrances  and 
exits. 


DEVICES   FOR    MOVEMENTS  OF   ACTORS  25 

may  seem  more  properly  to  belong.  In  three  earlier  plays 
and,  I  believe,  in  a  later  one,  Aeschylus  found  his  chorus,  when 
it  was  time  for  them  to  sing,  outside  the  orchestra.  As  con- 
vention demanded  their  presence  there  during  a  stasimon,*^  he 
was  compelled  to  make  either  a  motived  or  unmotived  change 
of  position.  He  preferred  the  former  method,  as  the  three 
passages  discussed  first  will  show. 

Eighth  Device — to  get  Chorus  into  Orchestra  (Suppliants, 
506  ff. — especially  508). — Danaus  has  already  been  sent  from 
the  stage  by  the  king.  The  king  himself  is  soon  to  leave  to 
convene  the  assembly.  The  chorus  are  still  on  the  altar  or 
mound,  where  they  must  have  joined  their  father  at 
about  210.  It  is  time  for  the  stasimon  to  be  rendered;  the 
poet  must,  therefore,  bring  the  chorus  into  the  orchestra. 
But  such  a  movement  on  the  part  of  the  chorus  Aeschylus 
felt  defied  all  probability.  What  was  more  unlikely  than  that 
they  should  leave  their  place  of  refuge, — with  their  pursuers 
expected  any  minute  and  male  protectors  denied  them?  How 
was  Aeschylus  to  meet  this  situation?  Of  course,  the  chorus 
could  come  down  of  their  own  accord  after  the  king's  depart- 
ure during  some  anapests,  and  without  the  assignment  of  any 
motive  whatever ;  or,  the  king  could  request  them  to  leave 
the  altar  with  promise  of  protection.  This  latter  course 
Aeschylus  adopted,  and  Richter  is  severe  in  his  criticism.*"' 
He  charges  that  this  motive  arises  from  an  outer  and  not  an 
inner  necessity  of  the  drama.*^  That  the  outer  necessity  was 
stronger  than  the  inner  may  be  true,  but  there  are  two  inter- 

*"There  is  only  one  probable  violation  of  this  convention  in  all  the 
plays,  viz.,  in  the  Eumenides,  where,  I  think,  the  chorus  sang  in  Apollo's 
temple.  I  shall  discuss  the  arguments  pro  and  con  on  another  page  of 
this  study. 

■"Richter,  op.  cit.,  p.  114. 

^So  Tucker,  who  remarks  in  his  note :  "This  move  is  obviously  un- 
necessary for  the  plot,  and  but  a  transparent  device  for  getting  the 
chorus  into  position  for  the  next  stasimon." 


26  DRAMATIC    ART   OF   AESCHYLUS 

esting  points  to  be  observed :  one  is,  the  fact  that  there  was 
an  inner  necessity.  The  father  of  these  girls  has  left  them. 
They  are  in  abject  terror  on  the  mound  clinging  to  the 
altars — in  a  truly  pitiable  state  of  mind.  They  certainly 
need  consolation,  if  any  can  be  forthcoming,  and  this  is 
what  the  king  offers — assuring  them — calming  them — tell- 
ing them  that  there  is  no  cause  for  their  remaining  with 
such  tention  on  the  mound.  The  other  interesting  point 
is  this :  the  motive  which  Aeschylus  used  to  conceal  his  outer 
necessity  was  an  inner  one,  as  these  words  of  comfort  and 
suggestion  fall  quite  naturally  from  the  lips  of  the  sympa- 
thetic king.  Richter,  on  the  other  hand,  calls  this  a  poor 
motive — and  worse  than  none.  But  surely  some  motive  was 
needed,  for  this  leaving  their  place  of  refuge  was  so  unlikely 
that  had  they  done  so  without  word  of  command, — and  that 
too  from  a  king  who  could  give  protection, — they  would  have 
violated  probability  to  an  offending  degree.  Aeschylus  chose 
this  motive — an  inner  one,  as  I  have  shown — because  there 
was  no  better  one :  and  it  doubtless  appeared  better  than  none 
at  all.*^  We  know  why  Aeschylus  wanted  the  descent  of  the 
chorus;  just  why  Pelasgus  (the  poet's  mouthpiece)  wished 
it,  is  of  course  not  expressly  stated.  But  he  was  a  king — 
it  was  his  wish,  and  that  was  something;  then,  too,  he  re- 
assured them  and  pledged  his  protection.     It  therefore  was 

■""Had  Aeschylus  allowed  the  chorus  to  step  down  with  no  motive 
assigned,  the  Suppliants  at  this  juncture  would  be  no  drama  at  all. 
The  dramatic  illusion  that  they  are  real  rational  actors  in  life's  drama 
would  be  largely  lost,  and  they  would  be  little  more  than  the  old 
Dionysic  chorus.  But  as  Aeschylus  has  passed  the  play  to  us,  there  is 
illusion  that  properly  belongs  to  drama.  They  went  down,  not  to  a 
dancing  place  (baldly  stated),  but  to  an  aXoog  which  still  afforded  the 
protection  of  the  gods. 

*'Wecklein's  observation  in  his  note,  "Die  szenische  Notwendigkeit 
wird  durch  das  Zogern  des  Chors  verdeckt,"  is  hardly  true.  The  hesi- 
tation of  the  Danaids  only  calls  attention  to  the  unlikelihood  of  any 


DEV^ICES   FOR    MOVEMENTS  OF   ACTORS  2/ 

with  no  little  success  that  Aeschylus  used  Pelasgus  in  this 
passage  as  an  inner  veil  to  cover  his  external  necessity.*^ 

Ninth  Dez'icc — to  get  Chorus  into  Orchestra  (Septem,  265). 
— We  have  a  like  device  in  the  Septem  where  Eteocles  in- 
cidentally requests  the  chorus  to  leave  the  images  and  go 
into  the  orchestra,  exiog  ovo'  dya^^i-idTOOv.  Here,  of  course, 
there  is  no  improbability  about  the  girls  leaving  the  sanctuary, 
whenever  their  fears  are  somewhat  quieted,  and  so  less  neces- 
sity for  the  request,  i.  e.,  the  device.  Still  the  courage  of  these 
girls  needs  bolstering  up,  else  their  weak  cries  may  dispirit  the 
soldiery  (cf.  237).  So  Eteocles  asks  them  to  leave  their  posi- 
tion of  craven  fear  on  the  mound  (similar  in  its  arrangement 
of  altars  and  statues  to  the  one  in  the  Suppliants)  and  "raise 
a  sacrificial  shout"  that  shall  inspirit  the  army  and  take  away 
terror  of  the  foe.  As  in  the  Suppliants,  the  poet  speaks 
through  the  mouth  of  the  king ;  again  it  is  a  king's  wish  which 
causes  the  removal.  For  mere  conventional  movement,  there- 
fore, Aeschylus  seems  to  have  had  an  aversion ;  so  we  see  him 
here,  with  hardly  less  success,  feeling  after  the  inner  and  the 
artistic. 

Tenth  Device — to  get  Chorus  into  Orchestra  (Prometheus, 
273-278). — Words  of  similar  intent  are  spoken  by  Prometheus 
to  bring  the  chorus  down  the  cliff  from  their  aerial  car  into 
the  orchestra.  Bolle*^  suggests  that  Prometheus  makes  this  re- 
quest of  them,  because  he  is  bound  so  tightly  that  he  can  only 
painfully  turn  his  head  toward  them,  as  long  as  they  are  in  the 
car,  or  on  the  second  cliff  (which  is  one  of  the  two  cliffs  he 
imagines  as  forming  the  background).     This  might  be  very 

such  move.  In  portraying  this  hesitation  Aeschylus  frankly  admits  the 
difficulty  of  his  position — he  meets  it  squarely— he  paints  their  timidity 
— which,  then,  he  overbears  by  the  king's  promised  protection.  In  this 
hesitation,  however,  there  is  probably  no  attempt  to  "conceal  a  scenic 
necessity." 

**See  his  Die  Biihne  des  Aeschylus,  p.  6. 


28  DRAMATIC    ART   OF   AESCHYLUS 

reasonable  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  Prometheus  and  the 
chorus  have  already  carried  on  the  greater  part  of  their  dia- 
logue. From  this  point  on  the  chorus  are  thrown  into  the 
background,  and  Oceanus,  lo  and  Hermes  are  the  principal 
interlocutors.  Had  this  suggestion  from  Prometheus  come 
shortly  after  the  entrance  of  the  chorus,  Bolle's  theory  would 
carry  much  weight.  Placed,  as  the  passage  is,  at  the  close  of 
their  long  conversation  of  almost  150  verses,  it  seems  altogether 
better  to  consider  it  a  device  similar  to  those  already  discussed 
in  the  Suppliants  and  Septem,  viz.,  to  bring  the  chorus  into  the 
orchestra.*^  It  is  true,  the  scene  between  Oceanus  and  Prome- 
theus intervenes  before  the  singing  of  the  stasimon — and  well 
for  Aeschylus  that  it  does.  In  the  words  of  the  device  Prome- 
theus would  have  the  chorus  listen  to  and  sympathize  with  the 
whole  story  of  his  wrongs  (this  is  Aeschylus'  inner  reason  for 
their  movement),  but  he  could  hardly  have  asked  this  and  im- 
mediately been  treated  to  a  choral  song.  As  it  is,  the  already 
mentioned  scene  intervenes  and,  by  the  time  of  its  conclusion, 
the  Oceanides  could  sing  their  stasimon,  before  the  prospective 
conversation,  without  giving  offense  to  any  spectator  who  may 
vaguely  have  remembered  the  reason  for  their  change  of  posi- 
tion. Lest,  however,  some  one  should  take  offense  because  of 
the  Titan's  promise  so  long  deferred,  Aeschylus  makes  him 
apologize  for  his  silence  (436-437).  But  he  assigns  not  the 
external  reason,  viz.,  that  he  might  give  his  chorus  time  to  sing, 
but  an  inner  reason — altogether  plausible : 

[ix]  Toi  yhb\]  8ox8iTe  |iri8'  ai)^a8ia 
oiyav  |.i£  •  ovvvota  8e  8djtT0^iai  xsag, 

OQWV    EjiaUTOV    Ojbs    JtQOV08Xoi'|.lSVOV. 

"The  scholiast  says :  "PouXetai  yag  axr\aai  tov  xoqov  o.tcd;  to 
ordaiM-ov  aor\."  Harry's  note  is :  'To  listen  to  the  narrative  and  be 
prepared  to  sing  the  gtoloihov."  Wecklein's  note  is :  "So  as  to  listen 
more  conveniently  to  a  long  narration.  A  motive  is  thus  provided 
for  the  descent  of  the  chorus  from  their  car  into  the  orchestra." 


DEVICES   FOR    MOVEMENTS  OF  ACTORS  29 

We  must  not  forget,  too,  that  it  is  in  the  presence  of  the 
chorus  that  Prometheus  has  already  told  Oceanus  of  wrongs 
done  by  Zeus  both  to  himself  and  his  brother,  Typhon.  Here  -v,^^ 
again  we  see  the  tragedian  struggling  for  the  inner  reason,  / 
which  he  seems  even  compelled  to  back  up  with  a  later  apol- 
ogy,5o  ajifi  [xi  this  maturer  play  his  efforts  ( though  upon  exam- 
ination somewhat  clumsy)  are  crowned  with  a  good  measure  of 
success. 

Eleventh  Device — to  get  Chorus  into  Orchestra  ( Eumen- 
ides,  307-309). — This  fourth  choral  movement  is  much  easier 
for  the  poet  to  manage  than  the  other  three,  as  there  were  only 
a  few  steps  to  be  taken — and  those  were  probably  on  a  level. 
In  the  Suppliants  and  Septem  the  choreutae  had  to  descend 
from  an  altar — a  move  altogether  more  noticeable.  In  the 
Prometheus  the  movement  was  one  of  some  little  distance, 
beside  involving  a  descent.  We  shall  expect,  therefore,  an 
easier  handling  of  the  chorus  in  this  last  extant  drama,  and  this 
is  what  we  find. 

This  movement  is  effected  in  a  natural  way  by  the  ana- 
pestic  exhortation,  aye  8t)  xal  x^QOv  ay'co^isv,  x.  x.  A.,  "Let 
us  now  add  the  (choral)  dance,  i.  e.,  movement  (to  our 
binding  spell)  as  we  sing."^^  Of  course  the  dance  regularly 
accompanied  song,  so  this  slight  change  of  position  would  have 
been  natural  with  no  statement ;  but  Aeschylus  seized  his  op- 
portunity to  express  this  accompaniment  here, — thus  giving 
to  the  few  steps'"  an  inevitability  which  completely  concealed 
from  the  audience  the  conventional  (external)  necessity.  The 
chorus  were  still  close  enougfh  to  Orestes  for  the  working;  of 


""This  apology  of  the  Titan  for  his  silence  is  also  considered  in 
Chapter  III  under  the  heading,  Five  Speeches  which  justify  a  previous 
silence. 

^^So  Verrall's  note  on  this  passage. 

"There  would  be  but  a  few  steps  from  the  front  of  the  stage  to  the 
rear  of  the  orchestra. 


30  DRAMATIC   ART   OF   AESCHYLUS 

their  spell.  As  in  the  other  three  examples  of  choral  move- 
ment, an  inner  reason  called  for  the  move ;  but  here  our  poet 
was  even  more  successful  than  in  the  Prometheus  in  assigning 
a  natural  and  inner  motive,  as  no  later  apology  (to  back  it  up) 
was  needed. 

Summing  up,  then,  these  questioned  devices  for  the  moving 
of  the  chorus  into  the  orchestra,  we  find  that  in  the  first  two 
Aeschylus  had  no  little  success  in  concealing  the  conventional 
necessity  to  which  he  was  subject.  In  the  Prometheus  he  was 
quite  successful  in  such  concealment — so  much  so  that  every 
first-hand  reader,  I  believe,  accepts  his  inner  reason  without 
question;  in  fact,  even  one  of  the  critics  (Bolle),  as  we  have 
seen,  takes  this  reason  at  its  full  face  value,  ignoring  the  exter- 
nal need  altogether.  Moreover,  in  the  last  device  of  this  char- 
acter (in  the  Eumenides)  Aeschylus  was  about  as  successful 
as  one  could  wish  in  finding  his  inner  reason. 


THE   CHORUS  3I 


THE   CHORUS. 
Its  Composition. 

In  only  two  of  Aeschylus'  tragedies  do  we  find  old  men  in 
the  chorus.  In  the  other  five  plays  we  have  young  women. 
Sophocles,  on  the  contrary,  chose  men  for  the  chorus  in  five  of 
his  plays,  while  young  women  appeared  only  in  two.  Euripides, 
like  Aeschylus,  judging  each  poet  of  course  from  the  extant 
plays,  seems  to  have  preferred  a  female  chorus. 

The  reasons  which  led  Aeschylus  to  choose  the  age  and  sex 
he  did  for  his  choreutae  are  perfectly  obvious.  In  the  Suppli- 
ants we  find  a  myth  had  appealed  to  him  which  dealt  with  fifty 
maids.  The  only  way  he  could  approximately  bring  on  that 
number  was  to  make  of  them  his  chorus.  The  fact  is,  he  prob- 
ably chose  this  myth  because  it  exactly  suited  conditions  of  the 
drama  in  the  early  period  of  his  career.  In  this  story  the 
Daniads  were  the  principals.  In  the  primitive  drama,  as  he 
found  it,  the  chorus  was  the  virtual  protagonist,  with  a  short 
messenger  account,  speech  or  dialogue  between  each  stasimon 
to  advance  the  action.  There  could  therefore  be  but  one  chorus 
for  a  play  dealing  with  the  Danaus  sage — the  heroines  of  the 
story  themselves. 

In  the  Persians  and  the  Agamemnon,  under  somewhat 
analogous  conditions  old  men  were  chosen  for  the  chorus — and 
for  patent  reasons.  In  each  case  the  king  and  army  of  the 
country  were  off  fighting ;  the  elders  had  been  left  behind — too 
old  to  fight,  but  ripe  in  counsels ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  Per- 
sians, at  any  rate,  they  were  regents  of  the  realm.  Aside  from 
the  queens  in  each  drama,  they  were  the  ones  nearest  the  royal 
heart,  full  of  anxiety  for  the  absent  and  eager  for  a  triumphal 


32  DRAMATIC    ART   Or    AESCHYLUS 

return.  Who,  then,  could  so  naturally  or  so  well  serve  as  the 
poet's  agent  in  the  lyrical  parts  of  these  plays  for  unfolding 
events  of  the  past,  and  for  gathering  a  cloud  of  dread  uncer- 
tainty vi^hich  must  precipitate  ruin?  Another  advantage  in  a 
male  chorus  must  not  be  overlooked.  The  fact  that  they — be- 
ing men — are  so  stricken  with  fear  at  first,  and  with  grief  la- 
ter, when  the  catastrophe  is  unfolded,  produces  an  effect  of 
utter  collapse  far  beyond  the  power  of  a  chorus  of  women. ^^ 

In  the  Septem,  aside  from  the  fact  that  had  a  chorus  of  men 
been  chosen  there  would  have  been  an  absolute  dearth  of  female 
characters  during  the  first  three-fourths  of  the  play,  there  was 
yet  a  more  vital  reason  for  Aeschylus'  choice.  He  evidently 
wished  to  arouse  patriotic  sentiments  in  his  audience,  and  to 
paint  the  drama  of  war.  Because  of  the  paucity  of  his  actors 
and  his  limited  stage  machinery,  anything  like  a  realistic  war 
scene  was  out  of  the  question.  What,  then,  could  he  do  ?  He 
must  describe  to  the  audience  the  scene  he  could  not  act  before 
them.  Right  here  we  find  Aeschylus'  reason  for  his  choice  of 
young  women  in  the  chorus  of  the  Septem.  They,  better  than 
men,  can  describe  this  scene — in  this  case  no  epic  description 
will  suffice.  They  come  to  the  citadel  disordered  (this  time 
there  is  no  stately  anapestic  entrance  march).  With  poignant 
fear  they  rush  to  the  altars  for  protection  from  the  foe ;  now 
thev  visualize^*  for  the  audience  the  onslaught  of  the  enemy  ; 


''So  Teuffel  in  his  introduction  (p.  5).  Herein  our  poet  shows  a 
much  greater  power  of  discrimination  than  Phrynichus,  who  chose  a 
female  chorus  for  the  Phoenissae,  his  play  on  which  this  Aeschylean 
drama  is  modeled.  Were  the  Phoenissae  entirely  extant,  a  comparison 
of  the  effects  of  the  two  choruses  would  afford  a  very  interesting  con- 
trast. 

°^In  his  efforts  (with  marked  success)  to  visualize  this  war  scene, 
Aeschylus  is  unconsciously  perhaps  preparing  his  hand  for  that  incom- 
parable passage  of  visualization — the  Cassandra  scene  in  the  Agamem- 
non. There  all  the  horror  of  murder  is  present,  although  murder's 
presence  is  absent. 


THE   CHORUS  33 

now  they  pathetically  paint  the  awful  horrors  of  war.  How 
more  vividly  than  by  actual  war  itself,  could  Aeschylus  have 
presented  a  beleaguered  city?  It  should  be  added  that  a  more 
complete  picture  of  war  is  given  by  the  introduction  of  a  female 
chorus.  War's  reverse  side  is  shown.  What  a  terrible  fate 
awaits  these  maidens  if  the  town  is  captured  !  Again  when  the 
tragic  catastrophe  sets  in,  as  Flagg  observes,  the  appropriate- 
ness of  the  poet's  choice  is  apparent  from  still  another  point  of 
view.  I  will  quote  from  this  editor  :^^  "The  sentiments  ex- 
pressed (by  the  chorus)  in  opposition  to  Eteocles  (when  they 
are  trying  to  dissuade  him  from  meeting  his  brother)  are  such 
that,  though  the  noblest  in  tragedy,  they  could  not  have  been 
uttered  by  men."  It  is  true,  a  chorus  of  men  might  have 
deprecated  the  pollution  of  fratricide,  but  Eteocles'  point  of 
honor  in  683-684,  eitceq  xaxov  cfiQOi  xig,  atoxiivY]?  ax?.Q  eoto)' 
\i6vov  Y^Q  y-igboc,  ev  t8§vt]x6oi,  they  could  hardly  have  com- 
bated. 

In  the  Prometheus  Bound  the  chorus  of  ocean  nymphs  is 
chosen  as  a  foil  for  Prometheus. ^*^  By  very  contrast  with  them 
the  strength  and  defiance  of  the  hero  is  emphasized.  The  fiery 
Titan  would  have  spurned  advice  and  sympathy  from  a  chorus 
of  men,  as  disdainfully  as  the  proferred  overtures  of  Oceanus. 
Advice — help — were  not  things  that  Prometheus  craved,  but  j 
feminine  sympathy  (cf.  276-277).  / 

In  the  Choephoroi  a  chorus  of  handmaids  from  the  palace 
was  chosen  because  they  alone,  knowing  conditions  in  the  palace 
and  torn  by  them  just  as  Electra,  could  feel  that  hate  for  master 
and  mistress,  that  longing  for  an  avenger,  which  a  chorus  must 

'T.  96  of  the  notes. 

'■"While  the  chorus  is  usually  of  the  same  sex  and  near  the  same 
age  as  the  protagonist — obviously  to  the  end  that  they  may  afford  a 
closer  sympathy  or  a  more  united  co-operation — sometimes  for  very  \  / 
opposite  considerations  a  chorus  of  different  sex  and  age  is  chosen.  In 
the  Antigone,  e.  g.,  the  lone  position  of  the  heroine  is  emphasized  by 
the  introduction  of  a  chorus  of  old  men. 


n 


34  DRAMATIC    ART   OF   AESCHYLUS 

feel  in  a  drama  of  revenge.  Their  own  emotion  at  the  break- 
ing point — they  could  communicate  their  feeling  to  the  specta- 
tors of  the  play. 

In  the  Eumenides,  Aeschylus  chose  a  chorus  that  differs 
from  all  others  of  extant  tragedy.  In  the  last  play  of  his 
trilogy,  the  poet's  purpose  was  to  free  Orestes  from  further 
persecution  and  lift  the  cloud  of  the  curse  from  his  race. 
When  the  play  began  to  shape  itself,  he  doubtless  had  Athene, 
Apollo  and  Orestes  in  his  mind  for  the  trial  scene,  as  well  as  the 
prosecuting  Erinyes.  Athene,  Apollo  and  Orestes  made  the 
three  actors ;  therefore  the  group  of  personages,^^  the  goddesses 
of  revenge,  must  be  his  chorus. 


Motivation  of  Entrances. 

A  question  of  interest  here  presents  itself,  viz.,  did  Aeschy- 
lus bring  on  a  motived  or  unmotived  chorus?  That  is,  did  he 
give  the  audience  any  particular  reason,  by  direct  statement  or 
inference,  for  the  presence  of  the  chorus  where  they  are  found 
near  the  beginning  of  each  play?  In  the  Suppliants  it  was  an 
unavoidable  inference  for  the  spectator,  that  the  chorus  came 
into  the  akoog  (orchestra),  because  it  contained  the  altar 
with  its  statues;  which  was  just  such  a  place  of  refuge  as  they 
were  seeking. 

In  the  Persians,  if  we  assume,  as  is  probable,^^  that  there 
was  no  change  of  scene  and  that  the  tomb  was  the  only  struc- 
ture visible  during  the  play,  the  chorus  entered  unmotived  so 
far  as  place  was  concerned.  Just  why  the  old  councillors 
should  go  to  the  tomb  of  Darius,  and  why  Atossa  should  ex- 

"In  Homer  and  Hesiod  the  Erinyes  are  usually  plural  in  number; 
no  definite  number,  however,  is  given  by  either  poet,  nor  are  names 
assigned. 

^*See  Dignan,  op.  cit.,  pp.  16-17;  also  Richter,  op.  cit.,  pp.  103-105. 


THE   CHORUS  35 

pect  to  meet  them  there  rather  than  at  the  palace  or  council 
house,  Aeschylus  no  where  states. ^'^ 

In  the  Septem  the  chorus  of  young*'"  women  tell  us,  what 

""In  Sophocles'  Electra  we  have  a  choral  entrance  offering  an  inter- 
esting parallel.  Entering  the  court  yard,  Electra,  in  a  lyric  monody, 
has  just  given  expression  to  the  sadness  of  her  life  in  the  palace  within, 
when  she  is  joined  by  the  chorus,  whom  she  addresses  (129-130)  :  "Ah, 
noble  hearted  women,  ye  have  come  to  soothe  my  woes."  In  so  far, 
their  coming  is  motived,  but  what  reason  did  the  chorus  have  for  ex- 
pecting to  find  Electra  in  the  court  yard?  They  surely  did  not  expect 
to  enter  the  palace  and  comfort  her  within,  yet  they  did  not  know  of 
Aegisthus'  absence  (cf.  310),  a  circumstance  which  alone  made  her 
egress  possible.  Electra  herself  says  she  is  outside  by  merest  chance 
(cf.  312-313),  i.  e.,  because  of  his  absence;  and  Clytemnestra  (516  ff.) 
says :  "At  large  once  more  it  seems  thou  rangest,  for  Aegisthus  is  not 
here,  who  has  always  kept  thee  at  least  from  passing  the  gates  and 
shaming  thy  friends."  This  meeting  at  the  gates  Sophocles  left  one 
of  chance.  The  small  probability  of  the  chorus  seeing  Electra  in  the 
court  yard  may  never  have  occurred  to  the  poet,  and  it  is  perhaps  mak- 
ing too  great  a  demand  on  the  early  dramatist  to  hold  him  to  such 
scrutiny  of  detail.  Kaibel,  in  his  edition  (p.  89),  has  the  following 
note :  "Aber  Soph,  hat  nicht  daran  gedacht,  das  Erscheinen  der 
Frauen  damit  zu  motiviren,  vielmehr  wissen  sie  von  Aigisths  Abwesen- 
heit  gar  nichts  (310).  Ihr  kommen  ist  durch  nichts  motivirt  als 
dadurch,  dass  ein  Chor  nothwendig  ist." 

*"Tucker,  in  his  edition,  under  xd  xoC  Agdixaxog  ngoocojia,  and 
also  in  his  note  on  686,  which  involves  the  use  of  the  word  xexvov, 
tries  to  show  that  some  of  the  women  were  not  young,  but  fully  mature ; 
but  one  might  as  well  call  them  children  on  the  strength  of  the  word 
;jiai8eg  in  792.  His  evidence  from  Cod.  Guelf.  and  the  scholium  on 
107,  only  shows  that  xexvov  was  a  stumbling  block  to  some  of  the 
ancient  readers  of  the  Septem  as  well  as  himself.  The  sentiments 
expressed  by  the  chorus  are  not  too  mature  for  young  women,  nor  are 
their  references  to  the  sexual  relation  unusual  (cf.  Suppliants  301,  a 
verse  which  Tucker  however  assigns  to  the  king ;  also  Agamemnon, 
1125-1126  and  1193)-  Furthermore,  the  word  xexvov  need  not  be  a 
crux.  These  young  women  were  probably  well  acquainted  with  their 
prince.  Now  that  he  is  madly  plunging  to  destruction,  they  cry, 
"What  madness,  child !" — an  expression  quite  natural.  It  is  better  to 
follow  the  evidence  in  the  text  (no  and  171)  and  the  statement  in  the 
Hypothesis  of  the  best  Ms. 


36  DRAMATIC    ART    OF    AESCHYLUS 

indeed  their  manner  of  entrance  indicated,  that  they  have  come 
to  the  Acropohs  (cf.  240)  in  fear — to  the  images  of  the  gods; 
seeking  protection  (cf.  212)  from  the  enemy. 

In  the  Prometheus  the  chorus,  nymphs  of  Oceanus,  tell  the 
Titan  on  their  arrival  that  they  liave  come^out  of  curiosity, 
—  in  their  haste  even  bare-foot,  for  echo  from  the  clang  of 
bolts  had  penetrated  even  their  "caves  of  the  sea." 

In  the  Agamemnon  different  views  are  held,  but  the  chorus 
probably  came  on  without  express  motivation,  as  neither  the 
chorus  nor  Clytemnestra  speak  of  any  summons  issued  by  the 
queen. ^^  The  Hypothesis,  however,  says  :  v.ai  6  j-iev  (sc.  oxojto;  ) 
i6d)v  anr\yyEOiEV,  ami]  be  toov  jiqeoPl'tiov  oylov  |.i8Tan8[,iJtETai 
jt8Qi  xov  KVQOOv  EQO\5oa '  £^  d)v  xtti  6  XOQoq  Gvvioxaxai.  Accord- 
ingly several  editors  have  assumed  that  between  the  exit 
of  the  watchman  and  the  entrance  of  the  chorus  several 
hours  intervene,  to  allow  Clytemnestra  time  to  inform  the 
elders  by  perhaps  offering  sacrifice  on  all  the  altars.*^-  As 
Richter  says,  at  the  end  of  an  act  or  at  a  change  of  scene  (as 
in  the  Eumenides ) ,  a  lapse  of  time  may  be  readily  allowed ; 
otherwise,  a  short  scene  should  intervene  to  give  time ;  but 

"Surely  had  Clytemnestra  summoned  the  elders,  they  would  have 
mentioned  the  fact  when  they  addressed  her : 

av  be,  Tv\'bdQ£Oi 

Ti  XQEog ;    Ti  veov;  '/..t.I.   (83-103). 

Moreover,  they  would  have  been  especially  likely  to  assign  their  reason 
for  coming,  since  she  disdained  them.  I  agree  with  the  editors  who 
think  the  queen  was  directly  addressed.  To  see  the  likelihood  of  this 
point,  compare  a  like  passage  in  the  Iphigeneia  of  Tauris,  where  the 
chorus  enter  and  address  their  priestess  as  follows : 

Ti  V8OV ;   Tiva  cpQ0VTi8'  e'xeig; 

Ti  |.i£  jtqo;  vdov;  ayoiYE;  ■      ■   >    i^SJ-^S^)- 

^For  a  fuller  account  of  the  different  views  of  editors  see  Richter, 
op.  cit.,  134-136. 


THE   CHORUS  37 

there  must  be  something-  of  the  sort.  Had  the  poet  really 
wished  to  motive  the  choral  entrance  in  this  way,  he  would 
surely  have  made  some  mention  of  the  kindling  of  altar 
fires,  as  a  signal  for  assembly,  in  the  speech  of  the  watchman. 
Richter  has  pointed  out  that  the  real  reason  why  an  interval 
of  time  has  been  assumed  is  to  motive  the  entrance  of  the 
chorus ;  he  denies,  however,  that  the  poet  felt  obliged  to  mot- 
ive every  choral  parodos.  This  critic's  judgment  seems  sane, 
and  I  translate :  "The  chorus  in  Attic  tragedy  was  a  body  taken 
for  granted — so  essential  that  it  needed  no  motivation  on  its 
entrance. "^^  He  adds  that  he  who  insists  on  a  motive  may 
find  it  in  the  situation  itself.  It  is  quite  natural  for  the  elders 
to  assemble  at  the  palace,  where  at  any  time  the  news  may 
come  of  Troy's  capture.  On  assembling  they  tell  of  the  ex- 
pedition from  its  very  inception,  which  proves  that  they  could 
have  had  no  news  of  its  victorious  outcome ;  else,  surely,  their 
first  utterance  had  been  one  of  exultation.  They  cling,  how- 
ever, to  the  hope  that  Troy  will  fall. 

In  the  Choephoroi  the  chorus  state  in  their  first  two  verses 
that  they  have  been  sent  from  the  palace  with  libations, — 
of  course  for  the  tomb  on  which  Orestes  has  just  placed  his 
ofifering,  the  lock  of  hair. 

In  the  Eumenides  the  chorus  on  awakening  from  sleep 
sing  their  first  parodos  in  the  temple  of  Apollo.*'*  Aeschylus 
is  no  longer  in  every  case  bound  by  the  convention  that  his 

*'0p.  cit.,  p.  135. 

**After  verse  63  the  whole  dreadful  tableau  in  the  temple  must  have 
been  visible  to  the  audience.  The  effectiveness  of  the  early  part  of  the 
Eumenides  absolutely  depends  on  such  a  presentation.  The  audience 
must  see  Orestes  clinging  to  the  o(.i(pa>tOg  and  surrounded  by  the 
Furies.  We  do  not  know  just  how  the  poet  accomplished  this  scene 
shift.  There  have  been  several  devices  proposed:  (i)  the  ordinary 
eyMvy.Xr]\ia,  or  platform  on  wheels;  (2)  the  same,  understood  as  a 
semicircular  revolving  platform,  the  view  of  C.  Exon,  Hermathena, 
Vol.  XI,  No.  26,  p.   132 ;    (3)    a  curtain, — a  view  for  which  we   have 


38  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

chorus  must  sing  in  the  orchestra.*^^  At  least,  on  this  one 
occasion  his  genius  would  not  brook  limitation,  and  conse- 
quently we  owe  to  him  a  novel  and  most  powerful  scene.  Had 
the  chorus  come  out  of  the  temple  into  the  orchestra  before 
singing  their  ode,  this  parodos  would  have  lost  its  very  en- 
tity, for  it  is  a  waking  lament,  in  which  they  give  expression 
to  the  troubled  dream  that  has  disturbed  their  slumber.  More- 
over, the  arraignment  of  Apollo,  beginning  "Child  of  Zeus, 
thou  art  a  thief"  (149),  gains  half  its  force  because  it  is  ut- 
tered in  Apollo's  own  temple.  Furthermore,  Apollo's  fine 
lines  (179-197)  simply  could  not  have  been  spoken  had  the 
chorus  been  outside  his  temple.*'*'  After  line  234  the  scene 
changes^^  to  the  temple  of  Athena  at  Athens.     Orestes  enters 

no  evidence,  propounded  by  Miiller.  Sidgwick  and  Wecklein  agree 
that  by  some  means  the  interior  of  the  temple  was  visible.  For  an 
opposite  view  see  Richter  (op.  cit,  p.  220)  and  Verrall's  note  in  his 
edition.  To  me,  the  way  in  which  Verrall  brings  on  and  takes  off  the 
actors  in  this  part  of  the  play  seems  most  commonplace,  and  spoils  its 
effectiveness. 

•^I  am,  of  course,  aware  that  the  chorus  in  both  the  Suppliants  and 
Septem  sang  their  parodos  on  an  altar.  The  point  is,  the  altars  in  both 
those  cases  were  probably  in  the  orchestra;  here  the  chorus  sing  their 
parodos  altogether  away  from  the  orchestra  in  the  temple — thus  break- 
ing convention.  Holding  this  view,  I  must  dissent  from  Blass,  who 
says  in  his  note  on  the  first  parodos  (140-178)  :  "Man  hat  sich  zu 
denken,  dass  die  Eringen,  eine  nach  der  andern  errachend,  aufsprach- 
end,  sich  umsehen,  hier  und  her  rannten,  schliesslich  aber  nach  vorne  zu, 
d.  h.  von  dem  Ekkyklem  herunter  in  die  Orchestra,  wo  es  moglich  war 
sich  zu  gruppieren  und  regelmassige  Bewegungen  auszufiihren."  He 
adds,  however,  later:  "Nach  der  Fiction  des  Dichters  (179)  sind  sie 
gleichwohl  immer  noch  inerhalb  des  Tempels." 

^''Verrall  (as  Richter  already  noted)  holds  that  the  chorus  sang  in 
the  orchestra.  His  translations  of  8(OM.aTtov  (179)  and  of  nuxwv 
(180)  by  "sanctuary"  beg  the  question,  and  need  no  refutation. 

"The  only  well  established  scene  change  in  Aeschylus.  On  this  all 
the  editors  agree.  Individual  editors,  however,  have  proposed  other 
changes.  Wilamovitz  (in  Hermes  XXXH,  1897,  pp.  382-398)  argues 
for  a  change  of  scene  in  the  Persians.     For  an  answer  which  seems  to 


THE   CHORUS  39 

the  stage  over  the  orchestra,*'^  and  at  verse  243  sinks  down 
(cf.  252)  clasping  the  base  of  the  goddess'  statue.  With 
244  the  chorus  enter  hunting  the  trail  and  begin  the  second 
parodos,  which  lacks  the  usual  strophe  and  antistrophe. 
Hereupon  we  have  a  "search  scene"  f'^  the  chorus  search  over 
the  entire  scene  for  their  victim  (cf.  255  ff.).  In  252  they 
discover  him  and,  as  they  pronounce  upon  him  the  inexorable 
doom  of  a  matricide,  the  parodos  closes. 

The  presence  of  the  chorus  in  both  parodoi  was  motived. 
The  shade  of  Clytemnestra,  before  they  sang  the  first  parodos, 
motived  their  presence  in  the  temple — no  motive,  however, 
was  needed  but  Orestes.  At  the  end  of  the  Choephoroi  he 
was  hounded  ofif  the  stage  by  the  spiritual  presence  of  the 
furies;  so  the  spectator  was  ready  for  their  physical  presence 
in  the  play  that  succeeded.  In  the  second  parodos,  as  already 
stated,  the  chorus  entered,  in  word  and  in  manner,  scenting 
their  blood-dripping  victim.  Orestes,  of  course,  again  was 
the  motive  for  their  presence. 

The  conclusion  in  regard  to  choral  motivation  is  that  while 
Aeschylus  motived  five  of  his  choral  entrances,  he  did  not  feel 
obliged  to  do  so.  The  chorus  was  the  essential  element  of 
the  early  drama,  and  "Bring  on  your  chorus"  was  the  regular 
introduction  of  a  Greek  play.'" 

me  complete,  see  Dignan,  op.  cit.,  pp.  16-17.  Tucker  in  his  edition  of 
the  Septem  indicates  a  scene  change  (at  78)  from  the  Agora  to  the 
Acropolis.  Since  he  cites  no  proof  to  fortify  his  position,  we  may 
pass  this  statement  by — merely  remarking  that  in  time  of  war  the 
Acropolis  of  a  beleaguered  city  might  well  serve  for  the  Agora  as  well. 
In  his  edition  of  the  Choephoroi  in  the  Introduction,  p.  xl,  he  discusses 
a  probable  scene  change  at  874.  Consult  Verrall's  edition,  Appendix  I, 
pp.  183-188,  for  a  second  scene  change,  which  he  assumes  in  that  play. 

**See  Capps,  The  Greek  Stage,  T.  A.  P.  A.,  Vol.  XXII,  pp.  32-34- 

"See  Capps,  loc.  cit.,  p.  32. 

'°I  have  noted  elsewhere  how,  in  like  manner,  the  poet  (for  scenic 
considerations)  sometimes  brought  on  actors  with  naive  freedom  in  his 
earlier  plays;  t.  e.,  he  did  not  feel  constrained  to  make  clear  just  why 
the  actor  should  be  at  the  given  place  at  the  given  time. 


40  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 


Four  Examples  of  Artistic  Management. 

I  desire  to  discuss  three  passages  where  Aeschyhis  artis- 
tically handled  a  chorus  whose  presence  was  perplexing;  and 
also  a  fourth  where,  though  the  chorus  was  not  in  his  way, 
he  has  handled  it  with  consummate  art. 

In  composing  the  Agamemnon  (855  ff.)  Aeschylus  perhaps 
at  first  felt  hampered  by  his  chorus,  until  the  insertion  of  verses 
855-858  occurred  to  him  as  a  happy  solution  for  the  situation. 
Clytemnestra  steps  out  to  meet  her  lord  soon  after  his  arrival, 
with  these  words : 

avbgeg  nollxai,  TiQio^og  'Apy^itov  toSe, 
om  alo/;i)voi5[iai  xovg  cpiXdvoQag  xQonovg 
Xi'E.ai  TtQog  vfiag'  ev  XQ^^^  ^    d:noq)Oiv£i 

TO    XOLQ^Og    aV^QOiKOlOlV    (855-858). 

The  scene  thus  introduced  must,  of  course,  take  place  be- 
fore the  audience  and  therefore  before  the  chorus ;  so  Aeschy- 
lus in  these  words  acknowledged  and  rendered  very  tolerable 
his  stage-limitation — the  presence  of  the  chorus,  who  made 
the  action  public.  His  embarrassment  arising  from  the  pres- 
ence of  the  chorus  here  lay,  I  think,  not  so  much  in  the  fact 
(per  se)  that  the  chorus  were  to  be  present  and  thereby  make 
public  a  family  scene — the  reunion  between  husband  and  wife 
after  a  long  separation — for,  without  thought  of  embarrass- 
ment, he  allowed  his  chorus  in  the  Choephoroi  to  be  present 
during  the  touching  reunion  between  brother  and  sister ;  be- 
sides, I  hardly  think  Aeschylus  was  more  sensitive  on  this 
point  than  Sophocles,  who  portrayed  before  his  chorus  the 
tender  reunion  of  brother  and  sister  in  the  Electra,  and  the  still 
more  tender  parting  between  father  and  daughters  in  the 
Oedipus  Tyrannus.     His  embarrassment  lay  rather  in  the  fact 


THE   CHORUS  4I 

that  he  must  make  Clytemnestra  speak  words  of  greeting 
known  by  these  elders  to  be  false.  He  had  too  keen  a  sense  of 
dramatic  propriety  to  be  willing  to  consider  the  chorus,  as  did 
Euripides  on  occasion,  a  conventional  body  on  whose  presence 
he  need  hardly  reckon.  Aeschylus  faced  the  difficulty  here 
squarely — just  as  it  was — and  with  ingenuity.  He  portrayed 
the  queen  with  such  tragic  strength,  with  such  boldness  and 
brazenness,  that  his  actress  herself  met  the  situation  for  him. 
Another  woman  would  have  said  "I  hesitate";  Clytemnestra  by 
the  tone  of  her  voice,  it  seems  to  me,  made  oux  aloxwoO^ai 
mean  almost  "I  glory."  "I  am  not  ashamed  to  speak  of  my 
love  of  my  husband  before  you  men  ;  in  time  fear  for  men  van- 
ishes.'' This  excuse  of  the  queen  tolerating  the  presence  of  the 
chorus  is  natural  (for  her)  and  satisfactory.  Undramatically 
stated,  it  is  just  this:  "Despite  what  these  men  suspect,  I  do 
not  mind  their  presence  in  the  least — let  them  stay."  The  pas- 
sage doubtless  also  contains  the  terrible  undercurrent,  ''My 
fear  for  Agamemnon  is  waning" ;  but  here  is  a  good  instance 
of  one  of  the  double  meanings  in  which  the  poet  took  so  keen 
a  relish.  It  none  the  less,  I  think,  admirably  served  to  natural- 
ize his  stage  limitation — the  presence  of  the  chorus. 
Verses  872-874, 

djrooTai?(0|.iEv  Jcgdyi-iaTog  TeAouj-ievou, 
oncog  8oxa)[x8v  tcov6'  dvaitiai  xaxcov 
elvai  •  udxT]g  yc^o  St|  xexijQWTai  xiloi; 

in  the  Choephoroi  are  also  interesting  as  showing  what  com- 
mand Aeschylus  had  over  his  chorus.  These  verses  have  re- 
ceived little  consideration  ;'^  and  yet  few  passages  in  his  dra- 

"Richter  in  his  criticism  and  Wecklein  in  his  edition  do  not  touch 
on  these  verses  from  an  artistic  point  of  view.  Verrall  and  Tucker, 
however,  in  their  editions  have  interesting  notes,  which  I  shall  presently 
quote. 


42  DRAMATIC  ART  OF  AESCHYLUS 

mas,  when  put  under  the  microscope,  will  reveal  so  much  art. 
Why  do  the  chorus  (872)  stand  aside?  Their  stated  reason 
sounds  plausible  enough :  they  do  not  wish  to  be  implicated 
in  the  tragedy  which  is  being  enacted  within.  They  know 
not  as  yet  whether  Aegisthus  or  Orestes  will  get  the  upper 
hand,  and  in  the  event  of  Orestes'  fall  they  would  avoid 
suspicions  of  Aegisthus'  wrath.  But  does  not  this  move- 
ment of  the  chorus  fill  a  larger  purpose  in  the  dramatic  econ- 
omy of  the  play?  Or,  is  not  the  reason  ostensibly  given  by 
the  chorus  but  a  screen  for  the  real  reason  of  the  poet  which 
will  presently  appear?  It  seems  likely  that  the  chorus  divided 
into  two  companies  and  withdrew  (by  the  two  entrances  to 
the  orchestra)  behind  the  side  walls. '^-  In  that  case  they 
were  visible  to  the  spectators  though  unseen  by  the  actors, 
Orestes  and  Clytemnestra.'^  It  requires  but  a  little  imagina- 
tion to  picture  the  effectiveness  of  such  a  disposition  of  actors 
and  chorus.  The  members  of  the  chorus,  in  various  attitudes 
of  intensest  wonder  and  terror,  listen — half  in  hope,  half  in 
horror.  It  is  a  battle  for  life  that  Clytemnestra  and  Orestes 
are  fighting — and  here  we  find  the  poet's  real  reason  for  re- 
moval— they  must  fight  it  out  alone. '■*  The  poet  removes  his 
chorus  from  sight  of  these  two  actors — son  and  mother — 
feeling  instinctively  that  the  presence  of  outsiders  would  be 
a  profanation.  The  soul  of  this  mother  and  the  soul  of  this 
son  are  bare  before  each  other  during  these  moments  of  sol- 
emn judgment.  Aeschylus'  real  reason  for  the  change  of 
position  was  just  this:  the  chorus  was  in  his  road;  he  must 
get  rid  of  it;  he  therefore  sent  them  (on  the  pretext  of  872- 


"See  Richter,  op.  cit.,  p.  216. 

"This  does  not  mean  that  they  could  not  actually  see  the  actors ; 
their  position,  however,  near  the  end  of  the  walls  was  such  as  to  carry 
out  the  illusion  that  the  participants  were  alone. 

'*Pylades,  a  mute  save  for  the  speaking  of  three  verses,  need  hardly 
be  reckoned  in  this  connection. 


THE   CHORUS  43 

873)  to  a  position  behind  the  side  walls."  Here  again  Aeschy- 
lus surmounted  his  stage-limitation — this  time,  perhaps,  by- 
somewhat  defying  convention  and  sending  his  chorus  from 
the  orchestra  together.  One  should  add  that  this  view  does 
not  preclude  a  minor  advantage  which  this  same  movement 
may  have  served.  Wecklein  says  that  at  891  the  body  of 
Aegisthus  was  visible  to  the  audience  through  the  opened 
door.  This  may  well  have  been  so,  and  of  course  a  larger 
proportion  of  the  audience  could  have  seen  with  this  dis- 
position of  the  chorus. 

There  is  another  passage  in  the  Agamemnon  (1343-1371) 
where  the  chorus  are  plainly  in  the  poet's  way  and  yet  are  artis- 
tically handled.  As  has  been  often  remarked,  whether  from 
necessity"^  or  considerations  of  taste,  murder  was  not  com- 


'^After  writing  the  above  (which  is  my  own  independent  judgment) 
I  find  I  have  been  somewhat  anticipated  by  Verrall,  whose  note  I 
herewith  quote :  "This  panic  among  the  women,  after  all  their  admirable 
bravery  and  presence  of  mind,  is  an  excellent  touch :  and  so  in  their 
imagination  that  they  could  possibly  now  dissociate  themselves,  if  need 
were,  from  the  plot,  they  are  for  the  moment  incapable  of  thought. 
From  djTOOxddwixev  we  must  naturally  understand  that  they  fly 
and  quit  the  scene.  For  this  there  is  every  possible  reason,  natural 
and  dramatic.  During  the  next  scene  and  at  the  close  of  it,  their  pres- 
ence would  be  worse  than  useless.  The  attempts  made,  from  supposed 
theoretic  necessity,  to  evade  this  ajtooxd^cotiEv  and  keep  the  maid 
servants  somewhere  on  the  field,  have  led  to  some  surprising  devices. 
It  has  even  been  suggested  that  they  got  behind  the  tomb  of  Agamem- 
non." I  again  quote :  "Orestes,  Pylades  and  Clytemnestra  are  alone 
upon  the  scene.  This  would  be  best ;  indeed,  I  think,  the  only  tolerable 
manner  of  presenting  such  a  deed  in  action.  No  one  is  present  but 
the  murderess,  the  avenger,  and  the  visible  representative  of  the  di- 
vine command."  Tucker  expresses  a  different  view,  in  his  note  on  871. 
I  quote:  "This  withdrawal  (which  is  to  be  taken  literally)  gives  an 
opportunity  for  the  change  of  scene  at  874  (for  which  see  his  Introduc- 
tion, p.  XL)  and  for  the  new  position  of  the  chorus  at  934. 

"See  Freytag,  Technique  of  the  Drama,  tr.  by  McEvvan,  pp.  75-76. 


44  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

mitted  on  the  Greek  stage."  For  the  full  tragic  effect  on 
Greek  consciousness,  however,  the  cry  of  the  victim  was  a 
requisite.  But  in  the  Agamemnon,  when  the  audience  heard 
the  oj|xoi  of  the  king,  the  chorus  heard  it  also,  and  that  was 
the  poet's  perplexity.  How  was  he  to  keep  those  elders  from 
breaking  into  the  palace  and  intercepting  things  half  done? 
Cassandra  must  meet  the  same  fate  as  Agamemnon,  else  the 
tragedy  would  be  spoiled.'^ 

To  say  that  convention  prevented  the  chorus  from  enter- 
ing the  palace  may  be  true,  though  we  should  be  slow  to  assert 
that  Aeschylus  is  absolutely  bound  by  this  or  that  convention 
in  his  later  work;  but  such  convention  was  of  little  assistance 
to  a  great  dramatist  who  keenly  felt  the  force  of  cause  and 
event.  Such  an  artist  knows  that  even  convention  must  be 
met  in  a  natural  way.  Does  convention  prevent  the  entrance 
of  the  chorus  into  the  palace?  Then  common  sense  and  ordi- 
nary conduct  must  as  well, — else  there  is  an  unreality  which 
is  absent  in  a  work  of  art.  So  we  repeat,  how  is  Aeschylus 
on  rational  grounds  to  keep  his  chorus  from  the  royal  house, 
until  the  fatal  moments  pass? 

In  the  murder  scene  in  the  Choephoroi,  already  mentioned, 
he  had  no  like  difificulty,  for  the  chorus  of  women  were  accom- 
plices in  the  plot.  There  he  feared  no  hindrance  from  them ; 
but  here  is  certainly  a  case  where  the  chorus  embarrassed  the 
poet.  Doubtless  he  was  too  Greek  to  wish  he  had  none  at 
all,  or  to  imagine  that  drama  could  and  would  in  future  years 
exist  without  it ;  but  the  text  he  has  left  us  leaves  traces  of 

"Strangely  enough  the  Hypothesis  remarks  here :  ISioog  8'  'AioxvXo; 
xov  'Aya\ii\iyova  ejtI  aKr\vf\q  dvaiQeiodai  jtoiei,  which  the  editors  have 
discredited,  as  a  reading  of  the  text  reveals  the  contrary. 

"Cassandra  must  have  been  murdered  after  Agamemnon.  This  was 
the  natural  order  of  events,  and  there  was  hardly  time  for  her  murder 
between  her  entrance  into  the  palace  at  1331  and  Agamemnon's  cry  in 
1343.  It  must  have  taken  place  between  1345  and  1371,  a  much  longer 
interval  of  time.     See  the  next  note. 


THE   CHORUS  45 

his  dilemma.  On  the  one  hand,  he  must  not  portray  his 
chorus  as  cowards  betraying  their  lord ;  nor  can  he,  on  the 
other,  allow  them  to  enter  and  spoil  the  action. ^^  Accordingly 
he  consumed  what  time  he  must  in  a  spirited  conversation, 
participated  in  by  each  one  of  the  elders,  as  to  the  best  course 
of  action ;  and  this  certainly  is  not  unnatural  in  men  who  have 
lost  their  grip  on  active  life, — whose  lives,  as  the  poet  him- 
self says,  have  "fallen  into  the  sere."  They  are  old  men — 
throughout  the  play  represented  as  loyal  but  slow  of  compre- 
hension, a  characteristic  not  unusual  in  a  Greek  chorus. ^'^ 
Moreover,  the  majority  assert  themselves  as  in  favor  of  imme- 
diate action — which  means  entrance  into  the  palace.  The 
minority,  however,  ofifer  a  hesitating  objection,  which  indi- 
cates the  slowness  of  age  rather  than  cowardice,  and  furnish 
Aeschylus  with  the  necessary  delay. ^^  Finally  the  coryphaeus 
voices  the  general  sentiment  that  they  enter,  and  this  no  doubt 
they  are  on  the  point  of  doing  (they  have  taken  several  steps 
toward  the  palace)  when  by  some  means  or  other  the  interior 
of  the  palace  is  revealed.  This  answers  the  same  purpose  as 
though  the  chorus  themselves  had  entered.^- 

To  say  that  Aeschylus  meets  this  situation  to  our  absolute 
satisfaction  is  perhaps  an  overstatement ;  some  of  us  may  want 
immediate  action — the  doors  burst  open,  if  barred — the  mur- 
derous blows  stopped.     The  statement,  however,  that  he  has 


"In  a  scholium  (which  Weissmann,  Die  Scenische  Anweisungen,  pp. 
9-1 1,  refers  to  Aristarchus)  we  have  the  following  discriminating  state- 
ment :  EmxriSes  6e  xriv  Siaxojtriv  e;toir|oav  6  KOiy]xr\g  bvoiv  oxoxa^o^evo?, 
|Lir|X8  aiaxQo.v  MXuiv  xtjv  xqioivxcov  vKr\y.6oiv  KQO£\xi\'0iv  xov  PaoiXea  fxrixe 
En:iy.iv8i'vov  xr]v  n^gu^iv  ipCQomxwq  eioiovxcov  xu  (3aai'?i£ia. 

""There  is  a  like  hesitation  displayed  in  the  Septem.  See  Flagg's 
Seven  against  Thebes,  note  on  v.  806. 

"This  is  a  proof  of  the  wisdom  of  the  poet  in  choosing  the  personnel 
of  his  chorus  (in  addition  to  the  other  proofs  set  forth  in  an  early  part 
of  this  chapter). 

"See  note  on  verse  1370  in  Wecklein's  Agamemnon. 


46  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

managed  it  with  much  skill  and  as  well  as  any  dramatist  could 
manage  it,  under  the  embarrassment  of  a  chorus,  seems  un- 
questionably true.  So  in  this  third  instance,  Aeschylus  sur- 
mounted his  stage  limitation, — this  time  by  inventing  a  situa- 
tion which  all  but  completely  naturalizes  what,  in  the  hands 
of  a  lesser  playwright,  would  have  been  a  very  embarrassing 
inactivity  on  the  part  of  his  chorus. 

To  show  how  easily  Aeschylus  might  have  bungled  with 
his  chorus  here,  I  desire  to  cite  three  passages  from  Euripides 
in  which  the  latter  poet  under  similar  circumstances  has  given 
us  choruses  unnatural  and  undramatic  to  an  offending  degree. 

In  the  Medea  the  choreutae  are  awkwardly  present  on  the 
stage  while  two  murders  take  place  behind  the  scenes,  the 
intended  perpetration  of  which  they  have  already  gathered 
from  the  murderess  herself  before  she  quits  the  stage.  The 
awkwardness  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  do  not  desire  the  deaths 
of  the  sons  of  Medea,  any  more  than  the  elders  desired  the 
death  of  their  lord,  and  would,  therefore,  naturally  intervene 
to  save  them.  Beginning  with  verse  1236  Medea  tells  the 
chorus  that  she  has  decided  to  slay  her  children,  and  goes 
within.  The  chorus  do  not  follow  to  prevent  her,  but  render 
an  ode  containing  a  prayer  that  she  may  be  turned  from  her 
purpose.  After  outcries  from  both  sons  within,  the  coryphaeus 
exclaims:  "Hearest  thou  the  cry?  O,  ill-fated  woman!  Shall 
I  enter  the  house?  It  seems  right  to  ward  off  the  murderous 
blows  from  the  children."  The  sons  cry  out:  "Yea,  by  heaven, 
ward  them  off — high  time  it  is."  In  this  scene  the  chorus 
are  assured  of  w^hat  in  the  Agamemnon  they  can  at  best 
only  fear.  In  the  Agamemnon  Aeschylus  can  well  allow  his 
old  men  to  hesitate;  they  can  not  be  sure  of' the  queen's 
purpose ;  besides,  they  may  have  feared  a  conspiracy ;  but  here 
hesitation  and  inactivity  are  alike  senseless.  After  the  boys' 
call  for  immediate  help  the  chorus  render  a  choral  song  of  four- 
teen verses  about  Ino,  if  the  text  be  sound,  who,  too,  stifled 


THE   CHORUS  47 

her  mother  love  and  killed  her  child.  Such  sure  knowledge, 
coupled  with  inactivity,  makes  the  chorus  in  this  play  un- 
natural to  the  point  of  our  absolute  disapprobation. 

In  the  Hippolytus  we  have  a  suicide  behind  the  scenes 
which  the  chorus  would  naturally  try  to  prevent.  In  verse 
y2T^  Phaedra  acquaints  the  choreutae  with  her  determination 
to  slay  herself,  and  goes  within.  The  chorus  then  chant  an 
ode,  without  making  one  effort  to  thwart  her  intention,  al- 
though throughout  they  are  friendly  to  Phaedra.  Soon  a 
female  servant  appears  with  the  words :  "Alas,  alas,  run  to  my 
succor,  all  that  are  near  the  house ;  my  mistress,  the  wife  of 
Theseus,  is  hanging.  Will  not  someone  bring  a  sword 
with  which  we  may  undo  the  knot  around  her  neck?"  Let 
me  in  all  seriousness  ask,  how  did  the  chorus  know  but  what 
Phaedra  might  live  if  immediately  cut  down?  And  yet  one 
half  of  it  only  suggests  an  entrance  to  the  palace,  while  the 
other  indulges  in  a  bit  of  sophistry.  Young  men-servants 
finally  help  in  cutting  down  the  corpse.  Here  again  the 
chorus  is  not  only  present  on  the  stage  during  the  murder 
scene,  as  in  the  Agamemnon,  but  their  certain  knowledge  of 
the  whole  situation,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  they  have  no 
possible  conspiracy  to  face  should  they  decide  to  step  in  and 
interfere,  makes  their  inaction  almost  unpardonable. 

Again  in  the  Hercules  Furens  at  822,  on  the  bidding  of 
Hera,  Iris  enters  with  Madness  and  tells  the  latter  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  chorus  to  madden  Hercules  and  make  him  kill  his 
wife  and  two  children.  This  Madness  goes  into  the  palace  to 
do,  and  the  chorus  of  men  indulge  in  vain  chants  for  some 
twenty  verses,  until  a  messenger  enters  with  the  tidings :  "The 
children  are  dead."  There  is  possibly  an  element  of  dramatic 
weakness  in  Aeschylus'  management  of  his  chorus  of  old  men  in 
the  Agamemnon,  it  is  true,  but  Euripides  in  like  scenes  has 
allowed  this  element  to  take  seed  and  grow  into  a  full-grown 
plant,  and  this  plant  on  inspection  presents  a  dramatic  blemish 


48  DRAMATIC    ART   OF   AESCHYLUS 

of  serious  proportions.  The  truth  is,  Euripides  assumes  a  con- 
ventional non-interference  on  the  part  of  his  chorus  in  such 
murder  scenes,  just  as  much  as  in  others,  where  he  pledges  it 
to  secrecy  and  inactivity  at  the  instance  of  some  actor  engaged 
in  conspiracy. 

By  using  these  three  plays  of  Euripides  for  comparison, 
therefore,  we  see  how  easily  Aeschylus  too  might  have  made 
mistake  in  the  management  of  his  elders  in  the  Agamemnon ; 
and,  while  every  one  will  readily  admit  that  Euripides,  with  his 
intricate  plots,  had  choral  problems  to  face  of  which  Aeschylus 
little  dreamed,  the  fact  remains  that  Aeschylus,  though  there 
were  chances  for  it,  never  allowed  his  chorus  to  be  caught  in 
a  predicament  which  involved  absurdity. 

By  the  side  of  these  three  examples  of  artistic  choral  man- 
agement, I  desire  to  place  yet  another  in  the  Eumenides.  Here 
the  chorus  is  not  in  the  road,  as  in  the  other  three  passages, 
but  it  is  handled  in  such  an  admirable  way  that  it  deserves 
special  attention,  which  so  far  as  I  know  has  never  adequately 
been  given  it.  As  is  well  known,  the  chorus  in  the  Eumenides 
is  unique — Aeschylus  has  allowed  it  unusual  freedom.  These 
terrible  goddesses  probably  sang  their  first  stasimon  in  the 
temple  of  Apollo  and  not  in  the  orchestra.  They  made  their 
appearance  in  the  second  parodos,  trailing  Orestes  to  his  refuge 
— Athene's  statue.  No  doubt  they  spoke  verses  254-275  from 
the  stage  (another  unusual  performance),  rejoicing  in  the  close 
proximity  of  their  victim.  During  the  anapestic  march  of  307- 
320  they  doubtless  took  up  their  usual  position  (in  the  orches- 
tra) for  the  following  stasimon,  and  from  this  point  on  they 
are  more  like  the  conventional  chorus.  Now  this  is  the  inter- 
esting point :  How  did  Aeschylus  manage  this  change  from 
the  unconventional  to  the  more  or  less  conventional  ?  Would 
it  have  seemed  natural  for  the  Furies,  all  at  once,  to  throw  off 
their  former  role  of  pursuing  goddesses  and  assume  that  of  the 
regular    chorus?       Obviously    not.      In    a  case     like     this, 


THE   CHORUS  49 

there  must  be  some  natural  transition,  else  a  sudden 
change  will  present  unreality  and  give  offence.  Aeschy- 
lus makes  this  change  gradual  and  natural,  as  we  shall 
see.  Just  before  the  stasimon  the  Erinyes  terribly  threaten 
Orestes  (in  305)  and  then  utter:  vfxVov  6'  dxoiioei  x6v6e  bsofiiov 
OE^ev.  They  are  to  sing  the  necessary  chorie  ode, — but  it  is  to 
be  a  hymn,  in  keeping  with  their  character — a  spell  to  bind  the 
victim,  and  this  illusion  is  kept  up  throughout  the  ode.  In  329 
the  song  is  t68e  [liXog — but  more  than  that — jraoaxo:n;d — 
nagacpoQa  (pQevobaky\g — v^ivoi;  e^  'Eqivijcov,  t6£Oj.uoi;  cpQEVcov, 
dcpoQfiixTog,  ai)ovd  (5Q0T0ig.  Again  in  375  :  "The  lofty  glories 
of  men  waste  away  beneath  the  revengeful  measure  of  our 
feet."  Furthermore,  the  words  dyE  br\  xal  x^Q^^  a.\^(M\iEV 
(307),  introducing  the  movement  into  the  orchestra,  are  pecul- 
iarly appropriate,  as  it  is  at  this  point  that  the  Furies  begin  to 
assume  their  new  role.  In  this  natural  and  masterful  way 
Aeschylus  has  accomplished  the  evolution  of  his  chorus  in  the 
Eumenides.'^-^  By  the  time  for  the  second  stasimon  they  can 
sing  a  regular  choral  song  and  without  offending  artistic  taste. 
Let  us  sum  up  our  consideration  of  the  tragedian's  manage- 
ment of  his  chorus.  When,  on  examination  of  these  four 
examples  of  artistic  choral  management,  we  find  this  refusal 
of  his  genius  to  be  hampered  by  his  chorus  in  three  of  them, 
discovering  how  he  rose  above  difficulty  by  naturalizing 
convention  in  the  first  and  third  instances  and  by  somewhat 
discarding  it  in  the  second ;  and  when  we  pause  over  the  fault- 
less art  wdth  which  he  has  mastered  the  evolution  of  his  chorus 
in  the  Eumenides,  we  feel  that  all  honor  is  due  this  early 
master- workman,  who,  at  a  time  when  dramatic  action  and 
characterization  were  growing  apace,  never  allowed  his  chorus 

'^Some  of  the  points  mentioned  in  connection  with  this  evolution  will 
be  found  in  Verrall's  edition,  note  on  307.  For  a  further  discussion  of 
the  use  of  verse  307,  turn  to  Chapter  I  in  this  study,  under  the  heading 
Eleventh  Device. 


50  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

to  be  crowded  into  a  position  seriously  equivocal,  embarrassing 
or  inartistic. 


Employment  for  Introductions  and  two  Possible 
Innovations. 

I  now  propose  briefly  to  discuss  Aeschylus'  introductions 
with  a  view  to  his  dramatic  art  and  possible  innovations.  In 
the  earliest  two  extant  plays,  the  Suppliants  and  Persians,  the 
chorus  enter  at  the  beginning  and  give  the  necessary  intro- 
ductory information  and  atmosphere.  In  the  others  the  poet 
has  adopted  an  introduction  in  general  more  dramatic,  using 
the  speech  of  an  actor,  as  in  the  Agamemnon,  or  the  speeches 
of  two  actors,  as  in  the  Septem  and  Prometheus. 

Now  let  us  consider  two  possible  innovations  of  Aeschylus. 
So  far  as  we  know  from  extant  plays,  it  was  he  who  first  in- 
vented dramatic  illusion  in  his  introductions,  thus  relieving 
them  of  their  primitive  and  direct  address.^*  The  early  dithy- 
rambs, like  our  choir  songs,  no  doubt  were  sung  to  the  audi- 
ence; in  his  Suppliants,  as  we  shall  see,  our  poet  took  a  long 
step  toward  artistic  drama  when  he  made  his  chorus  ignore 
the  audience.  This  is,  I  think,  the  first  important  innovation 
(the  evidence  for  which  I  shall  give  later)  perhaps  attributable 
to  Aeschylus.  This  dramatic  illusion,  as  we  shall  see,  he  pro- 
duced (except  in  the  Persians)  whether  the  chorus  gave  the 
introductory  matter,  or  one  or  two  actors.  The  fact  is,  the 
assignment  of  the  introductory  matter  to  an  actor — prologus 
— instead  of  to  the  chorus  (and  later  to  two  actors),  may 
well  have  been  a  second  innovation  of  the  same  poet,  as  his 

**0f  course,  I  am  aware  that  direct  address  does  not  invariably  pre- 
clude dramatic  illusion.  In  the  Septem  Eteocles  may  have  directly  ad- 
dressed the  audience,  but  under  the  illusion  that  they  were  Cadmean 
citizens. 


THE   CHORUS  5I 

Septem  is  the  first  extant  play  which  employs  this  prologus.®^ 
This  innovation  also  marked  a  distinct  advance  in  dramatic 
art,  for  soliloquy  (in  the  case  of  one  actor)  and  dialogue  (in 
the  case  of  two)  easily  relieved  any  necessity  for  or  tendency 
toward  direct  address,  and  produced  the  desired  illusion.  In 
fact  the  early  poet  who  realized  the  advantage  of  illusion  in 
drama,  would  almost  inevitably  have  been  driven  in  his  intro- 
ductions to  the  prologus,  and  later  ( on  the  addition  of  the 
second  actor^*')   to  the  introductory  dialogue. 

With  reference  to  these  two  innovations,  let  us  examine 
in  some  detail  all  of  the  introductions.  So  far  as  I  know, 
editors  and  critics  have  taken  for  granted  that  the  poet  in 
his  first  two  extant  dramas  employed  primitive  and  direct 
address  in  giving  the  audience  the  requisite  introductory  in- 
formation. This  is  undeniably  true  of  the  Persians,  but  I 
believe,  untrue  of  the  Suppliants.  I  here  wish  to  suggest  a 
new  manner  of  presentation  for  the  parodos  of  the  Suppliants. 
In  the  Suppliants,  following  the  earlier  custom,  he  brought 
on  his  chorus  at  the  play's  inception ;  but  instead  of  allowing 
them  to  frankly  address  the  audience,  he  caused  them,  it  seems 
to  me,  to  disregard  it  altogether.  The  playgoer  was  now  a 
spectator  whose  position  was  unacknowledged.  The  plot  was 
still  unfolded  by  the  chorus,  but  in  an  indirect  way — through 
addresses  to  each  other  and  prayers  to  the  gods.  Post®^  says : 
"He  (the  poet)  frankly  admits  that  he  is  making  clear  the 
matters  which  it  is  necessary  for  the  audience  to  know."     The 

*'Themistius  refers  to  Thespis  as  the  inventor  of  the  prologue  (and 
rhesis),  citing  Aristotle  as  his  authority.  But  in  his  Poetics,  IV,  11-14, 
Aristotle  makes  no  mention  of  Thespis,  and  presents  a  view  of  the 
origin  and  development  of  tragedy  which  hardly  harmonizes  with 
Themistius'  statement.  It  can,  therefore,  scarcely  be  regarded  as  con- 
clusive. 

^^This  addition  of  the  second  actor  is,  of  course,  the  well  established 
innovation  of  Aeschylus.     See  the  Poetics,  IV,  13. 

'''Loc.  cit.,  p.  29. 


52  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

chorus  "frankly  address  the  audience  with  the  tale  of  their 
sufferings."  It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  Aeschylus  con- 
sciously shunned  such  a  frank  introduction,  even  as  early  as 
his  writing  of  the  Suppliants ;  and  that  in  such  avoidance  he 
was  quite  successful. 

The  first  word  in  the  parodos  is  "Zeus."  "May  Zeus, 
who  watches  over  suppliants,  look  kindly  upon  our  band  which 
has  set  sail  from  the  mouth  of  the  Nile."  This  is  probably 
spoken  by  the  coryphaeus  as  she,  coming  up  with  her  sisters, 
catches  sight  of  the  sacred  precinct  with  its  many  statues  and 
symbols  of  the  gods.  A  re-reading  of  the  passage  reveals, 
sprinkled  all  through  it,  prayers  to  these  gods  (and  to  lo  and 
Ephaphus)  for  deliverance  and  safe  retreat — and  may  not  even 
the  long  descriptions  of  their  flight,  e.  g.,  verses  4-23,  be  justi- 
fied artistically,  i.  e.,  naturally  called  out  by  the  close  proximity 
of  the  statues  of  these  very  gods  to  whom  they  are  praying? 
This  does  not  mean  that  every  word  would  be  spoken  just  as 
it  is  had  not  the  audience  been  present,  for  a  dramatic  poet, 
if  need  presses,  takes  advantage  of  an  opportunity  like  this 
and,  with  the  license  which  the  occasion  offers,  gives  as  extend- 
ed an  exposition  as  his  audience  requires.  What  more  natural 
for  the  coryphaeus  (on  seeing  Zeus'  welcome  statue)  than 
for  her,  with  a  gesture  toward  it,  to  turn,  not  to  the  audience, 
but  to  her  sisters  as  she  speaks  the  first  twenty-three  verses? 
Verses  4  ff.  would,  then,  be  a  justification  (to  her  sisters)  of 
her  prayers  for  Zeus'  protection:  "For  we  flee  for  no  sin  of 
ours  but  detesting  marriage  with  Egyptus'  sons,  and  our 
father  has  been  the  adviser  and  leader  of  our  flight."  In 
verses  23-40  we  have  a  direct  appeal  to  all  the  gods — to  the 
city,  its  land  and  waters.  From  40  to  175  we  have  strophes, 
antistrophes  and  refrains.  The  boldest  exposition  is  in  the 
first  strophe  and  antistrophe,  and  may  well  be  justified  by  the 
nearness  of  the  gods  who  have  just  been  invoked  in  the  pre- 
ceding lines :  "And  invoking  Ephaphus,  and  in  this  country 


THE   CHORUS  53 

where  our  ancestress  once  lived,  recalling  to  mind  the  old  suf- 
ferings of  our  race,  we  shall  prove  to  the  inhabitants  the  valid- 
ity of  our  claim  on  this  land's  protection."  The  second  strophe 
and  antistrophe  and  the  third  strophe  were  in  some  way  spoken 
by  the  chorus  to  each  other — they  may  have  faced  each  other 
in  two  divisions. ^^  In  the  third  antistrophe  we  have  a  direct 
appeal  to  the  Oeoi  yevixai.  Antistrophe  £  contains  a  prayer 
that  the  Zeus  who  has  just  been  extolled  may  punish  the  in- 
solence of  their  cousins.  The  refrains  added  to  both  strophe 
Z,  and  antistrophe  I,  relieve  them  of  any  charge  of  direct 
address  to  the  audience.  Strophe  y]  and  antistrophe  t]  with 
their  refrain  contain  a  beautiful  appeal  to  Zeus  and  Artemis. 
Strophe  d-  is  simply  a  continuation  of  the  foregoing  thought 
and  runs :  "But  if  Zeus  does  not  heed,  we  will  end  our  ex- 
istence and  approach  the  Zeus  of  the  dead."  The  refrain  is 
addressed  directly  to  Zeus.  In  the  antistrophe  the  thought 
is  carried  further :  "Zeus,  if  he  does  not  listen,  will  be  subject 
to  reproach  and  injustice"  (this,  half  to  themselves,  half  to 
Zeus).     Then  again  the  refrain  is  directed  to  Zeus,  lo's  Zeus. 

Of  course,  it  is  much  more  difficult  for  a  poet  to  employ 
illusion  and  indirectly  introduce  his  play  with  a  chorus  than 
with  a  single  actor  or  two  actors — a  single  actor  can  solilo- 
quize, two  actors  can  engage  in  dialogue — and  the  choral 
ode  under  discussion,  as  a  finished  product,  may  not  alto- 
gether hide  the  difficulty.  But,  it  seems  to  me,  this  beautiful 
parodos  would  be  much  more  effective  if  acted*^  in  the  fore- 
going way  than  with  direct  address  to  the  audience. 

In  the  Persians  the  chorus  frankly  address  the  audience 
without  any  pretense  of  illusion,  introducing  themselves — 
their  position  in  the  state — the  fears  they  entertain  for  the  host 
so  long  absent.     Now,  it  may  be  asked,  why  did  Aeschylus, 

"Verse  58  would  certainly  be  more  artistic  if  spoken  to  the  "stage." 
*°I  use  the  term  "acted,"  for  we  must  not  forget  that  the  chorus  are 
the  principal  actors  in  this  play. 


r 


54  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

after  shunning  direct  exposition  in  the  SuppHants,  use  it  in 
his  next  extant  drama,  the  Persians?  This  question,  perhaps, 
may  be  best  answered  by  another  question.  Was  a  more  artis- 
tic introduction  possible  for  the  Persians?  The  only  alterna- 
tive (provided  the  poet  uses  a  choral  opening)  would  be  to 
make  the  chorus  address  themselves  either  to  each  other  (a 
course  improbable  because  of  the  length  of  the  parodos)  or 
else  to  the  gods — let  us  say,  first,  their  Persian  gods.  Such 
prayers  to  strange  gods  would  have  been  an  innovation  that 
Aeschylus  would  not  likely  have  introduced,  nor  is  it  likely 
that  it  would  have  been  acceptable  to  his  audience.  Had  he 
sacrificed  illusion,  as  he  often  does  in  this  play,  and  allowed 
them  to  pray  to  the  Greek  gods  (the  more  probable  course) 
it  would  have  been  repugnant  to  the  Greeks  to  have  heard 
the  Persians  pray  to  their  Zeus  for  success  against  them, 
feeling — as  keenly  as  they  must  have — the  injustice  of  the 
Persian  cause. 

In  the  Septem  there  is  dramatic  illusion,  whether  Eteocles 
addressed  citizens  who  accompanied  him  to  the  stage,  or  the 
audience,  as  Cadmean  citizens.  If  the  latter,  his  exposition 
is  direct,  it  is  true,  but  there  is  the  illusion  that  his  audience 
is  the  Theban  assembly.  Such  an  introduction  is  a  distinct 
advance  over  the  primitive  one  with  its  undramatic  directness. 
In  the  Prometheus  Bound,  Aeschylus  treats  us  to  an  exposition 
which  is  even  more  artistic,  and  which  is  Shakespeare's  favorite 
method  of  introduction.  He  lets  Kratos  and  Hephaistos  in  a 
dialogue  give  the  necessary  information — in  fact,  does  more 
than  that — puts  our  sympathy  altogether  on  the  side  of  the 
hero  who  is  being  bound,  and  lays  the  foundation  stones  for 
the  atmosphere  of  the  whole  piece.  Just  as  efifective,  though 
much  shorter,  is  that  perfect  soliloquy  which  introduces  the 
Agamemnon.  The  faithful  watchman  on  the  roof  gives  in 
homely,  picturesque  language  the  facts ;  he  makes  us  sympa- 


SPEECHES  55 

thize^''  with  Agamemnon ;  and  in  a  few  masterful  words 
lets  that  cloud  of  dread  fall  upon  us  which  never  lifts  during 
the  whole  play.  The  introduction  to  the  Choephoroi  is  equally 
artistic  and,  though  some  of  it  is  lost,  is  very  effective  as  it 
stands.  Orestes'  prayers,  his  placing  of  the  lock  of  hair  and 
his  soliloquy,^^  acquaint  the  audience  with  the  situation  and  at 
once  win  them  to  the  cause  of  vengeance  which  he  represents. 
In  the  Eumenides  we  have  two  long  soliloquies  of  the  priest- 
ess. In  the  first,  we  learn  that  she  prays  to  the  gods  of  the 
fane  and  country  before  performing  her  daily  priestly  duties ; 
in  the  second,  after  her  re-appearance  from  the  temple  we 
have  a  soliloquy — one  of  the  most  effective  descriptions  in 
literature. 

Let  us  now  sum  up  Aeschylus'  introductions  in  the  light 
of  his  dramatic  art  and  possible  innovations.  In  the  Persians 
we  have  a  primitive  introduction ;  but,  barring  this  parados, 
we  probably  have  no  other  introduction  to  a  play  of  Aeschylus 
of  the  primitive  character ;  for  in  the  Suppliants  the  tragedian 
consciously  shunned  such  a  frank  introduction,  and  in  such 
avoidance  was  quite  successful.  Furthermore,  we  may  add 
(though  this  we  can  not  prove)  that  it  may  well  have  been 
he  who  invented  the  two  innovations,  (i)  dramatic  illusion  for 
introductions,  and — as  a  step  thereto —  (2)  the  assignment  of 
the  introductory  matter  to  an  actor  or  actors.  It  appears, 
therefore,  that  Aeschylus  taught  the  world  the  artistic  intro- 
duction of  a  play.  Furthermore,  though  his  successor,  Sopho- 
cles, used  dialogue  more  frequently,  he  has  given  us  intro- 
ductions no  less  artistic  and  effective.  As  is  well  known, 
Euripides  in  this  regard  presents  a  distinct  deterioration. 

""A  fact  which  certain  critics  have  ignored  in  their  estimation  of  the 
portrayal  of  his  character. 

*'For  such  it  seems,  although  Pylades  (the  mute)  is  present  and 
addressed  in  the  last  two  verses. 


56  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 


SPEECHES. 

I  shall  now  consider  various  speeches :  some,  with  reference 
to  their  dramatic  use ;  others,  with  reference  to  their  dramatic 
propriety.  Naturally,  there  was  much  less  action  on  the 
Greek  stage  than  on  the  modern.  This  was  chiefly  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  Greek  dramatist  generally  dealt  only  with  the 
result  or  catastrophe  of  a  certain  series  of  events,  while  the 
modern  dramatist  usually  includes  in  his  action  what  preceded 
the  Greek  play,  viz.,  the  growth  of  a  portentious  passion  and 
the  deed  or  crime  f^  but  it  was  also  due  to  the  lesser  number  of 
lines  at  the  disposal  of  the  ancient  playwright  for  the  develop- 
ment of  his  action.  Even  in  a  trilogy,  if  he  did  have  as  much 
space  as  Shakespeare  for  his  Macbeth,  he  gave  much  of  it  to 
his  chorus,  which  furnished  little  that  can  be  called  action ; 
therefore  his  space  for  spoken  parts  was  still  limited.  It  fol- 
lows, then,  since  the  possibilities  for  direct  portrayal  were  con- 
tracted, that  speeches  descriptive  of  an  action  were  contin- 
ually used  in  Greek  tragedy,  when  we  should  prefer,  and  on 
a  modern  stage  get,  the  action  itself.  The  fact  that,  in 
Aeschlus'  early  period,  the  actors  were  only  two  and  the 
stage  machinery  meager,  and  also  that,  even  in  later  days, 
modern  ensemble  scenes  were  out  of  the  question  for  the  Greek 
stage,  were  added  reasons  why  we  often  find  action,  e.  g.,  a 
battle  scene,  epically  described  instead     of     tragically    acted. 

^'For  the  two  methods  of  dramatic  construction,  see  Fre)'tag,  op. 
cit.,  pp.  107-109;  also  pp.  155-157.  There  are  exceptions,  of  course,  to 
the  generalization  I  have  just  made.  In  Antigone  we  find  (i)  a  stated 
determination,  (2)  the  deed  or  climax,  and  (3)  the  catastrophe.  In 
Aeschylus'  extant  trilogy  we  see  (i)  the  wrong,  (2)  the  complication, 
and  (3)  the  adjustment. 


SPEECHES  57 

In  this  case  the  dramatic  effect  depended  on  the  power  of  the 
poet  in  his  descriptions ;  and,  since  it  was  drama  and  not  epic 
he  was  composing,  much  also  depended  on  his  skill  in  dramat- 
ically excusing  the  long  speeches — thus  making  them  natural 
and  reasonable.  There  are  a  number  of  passages  in  Aeschylus 
that  are  interesting  from  this  latter  point  of  view,  and  I  pur- 
pose to  take  them  up  under  two  categories  with  reference  to 
their  dramatic  use. 

Speeches  justifying  speech  instead  of  action. — Under  this 
head  I  have  found  three  examples :  two  in  the  Septem  and  one 
in  the  Choephoroi.  To  the  first  and  last  no  attention  (so  far 
as  I  know)  has  been  called,  though  the  second  is  noticed  in 
two  editions. ^^  Beginning  with  verse  55  of  the  Septem  the 
messenger  says : 

yw?tr]Qoi'j.t8voug  6'  elemov,  wg  nakig  Xa/wv 
gxaoTog  auTOOv  hqoc,  nvXac,  ayoi  Aoxov. 

He  is  explaining  why  the  hostile  army  has  not  arrived  for 
attack,  as  soon  as  he  himself  for  the  delivery  of  his  message.  I 
think  Aeschylus  also  intended  the  speech  to  naturalize  the  scene 
between  Eteocles  and  the  chorus  ( 181-287),  which  immediately 
follows  the  choral  ode.  It  is  true,  we  gather  from  the  chorus' 
words  that  a  slight  skirmish  has  already  begun,  by  verse  158, 
of  which  further  mention  is  made  in  298;  but  the  battle  is 
stayed — the  foemen  are  drawing  lots  for  their  respective  posts 
at  the  gates.  Eteocles  may  therefore  be  spared  from  the  army 
for  a  few  minutes  during  his  colloquy  with  the  choreutae. 
Here  perhaps  Aeschylus  has  met  the  requirements  of  an  audi- 
ence or  first-reading ;  on  the  other  hand,  a  critic  may  study 
the  passage  and  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  were  greater 
demands  on  Eteocles  than  the  one  of  his  attention. 


^'See  the  note  of  Flagg  on  378,  and  Tucker's  note  on  the  same  verse 
numbered  365. 


58  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

We  find  a  second  instance  in  verses  378-379 : 

*  *  *  jiOQOV  6'  'lofxrjvov  oux  eu  mgav 
6  i-iavTig  •  ov  yoLQ  ocpdyia  yiY^^T^cti  y.ald. 

This  is  an  evident  attempt  of  the  poet  (in  the  face  of  the 
conditions  of  war)  to  justify  the  long  descriptions  of  the  op- 
posing warriors  which  follow.  Eteocles  is  present  again, 
having  returned  to  the  stage  after  making  preparations  for 
defense  (see  283-287).  This  attempt  meets  with  some  suc- 
cess— just  what  measure  each  reader  must  determine  for  him- 
self ;  but,  for  us,  it  certainly  cannot  altogether  dramatically 
justify  the  long  epic  element.  To  the  Greek  audience,  how- 
ever, I  believe  it  gave  little  offense,  so  accustomed  were  they 
to  the  recitation  of  Homeric  battles,  where  the  combatants 
not  only  before  but  even  during  an  engagement  took  part 
in  long  and  unnatural  conversation.^*  That  some  small  part 
of  the  spectators  may  have  taken  exception,  is  quite  likely 
from  those  well  known  lines  of  Euripides  in  his  Phoenissae 
(751-752),  if  these  lines  are  really  his;  where,  evidently  in- 
tending to  criticize  this  situation  in  Aeschylus,  he  makes 
Eteocles  say : 

6vo|ia  6'  ExdoTOL'  8iaTQi(3Tiv  jioXXt]v  I'xei, 
EX^QOov  iiJi'  avxolc,  teixeoiv  xa??r|^8vcov. 

Euripides,  accordingly,   did  not  present  his  messenger's  ac- 
count (Phoenissae  1090-1199)  until  after  the  battle. 

In  the  Choephoroi  (510-511)  we  find  the  third  example, 
where  Aeschylus  consciously,  I  think,  justifies  speech  instead 
of  action.  Here  the  chorus  before  urging  immediate  action 
excuses  the  long  kommos,  307-478  (together  with  the  less 
extended  prayers  of  Orestes  and  Electra  which  follow),  by 
calling  it  "a  payment  to  the  tomb  for  its  dirge  denied" — an 

'■"Compare  the  long  colloquy  of  Glaucus  and  Diomed  in  II.  6,  123- 
231,  which  took  place  during  an  engagement. 


SPEECHES  59 

excuse  which  can  hardly  satisfy  the  modern  reader,  to  whom 
the  long  dirgeful  cries  grow  monotonous,  but  which  may  have 
been  quite  sufficient  for  the  Greek.  To  him  no  doubt  this 
ritual  meant  far  more  than  it  does  to  us,  who  have  no  key 
for  its  full  understanding  and  significance. 

Speeches  {indicating  or  arousing  interest)  used  by  the 
poet  to  justify  long  narrative  passages. — Two  such  speeches 
are  found  in  the  Septem,  the  rest  naturally  enough  being  con- 
fined to  the  Prometheus.  In  the  Septem  (451)  we  read: 
l-iy'  aklov  aklaig  ev  :tuA.aig  eUrixoTa.  The  messenger  has  al- 
ready described  at  length  two  of  the  besieging  warriors ;  so  in 
these  words  Aeschylus  makes  the  king  indicate  his  interest  in 
a  further  recital, — thus,  in  a  measure  at  least,  justifying  it.  At 
the  end  of  the  next  speech  of  the  king  we  find  a  similar  device 
(480)  :  xo^ijia^'  EJi'  aXko),  |iT]6e  |ioi  qp^ovsi  Aoycov.  Here 
there  is  not  only  urgency — the  messenger  must  not 
stint  the  tale ;  so  the  fourth  recital  is  given.  But  neither  at 
the  close  of  Eteocles'  next  speech  nor  later  does  the  poet  give 
a  like  exhortation ;  feeling,  perhaps,  since  he  has  gotten  the 
individual  descriptions  well  started,  that  the  audience  will  take 
the  other  three^^  for  granted.  Furthermore,  as  has  often  been 
noticed,  there  is  variety  of  delineation  in  the  last  part  of  the 
messenger's  account,  and  a  climax  of  interest  which  needs  no 
verbal  encouragement,  viz.,  the  dread  thought:  "So  the  king 
is  to  be  pitted  against  his  brother  and  then — the  curse ! — ah ! 
— the  curse !" 

In  the  Prometheus  we  have  a  number  of  such  speeches 
which  indicate  interest  on  the  part  of  Prometheus'  interlocu- 
tors ;  also  speeches  of  the  Titan  himself,  which  are  intended 
to  pique  curiosity — that  of  the  audience  as  well  as  of  his  stage- 
listeners.  In  625,  627  and  629  we  read  lo's  insistence  that 
Prometheus  tell   her  "what  sorrow   remaineth?" — a  question 

''They  had  already  been  apprised  of  the  fact  that  there  were  seven 
hostile  war-leaders. 


6o  DRAMATIC    ART    OF   AESCHYLUS 

which  she  had  asked  in  604  ff.  and  re-asked  in  622-623.^'^  The 
poet  evidently  introduces  this  insistence  because  his  hero  had 
already  had  five  extended  speeches,  and  he  feels  that  only 
such  importunity  can  justify  continuation.  He,  however,  real- 
izing the  value  of  variety  and  suspense  in  a  drama  of  marked 
epic  proportions,  does  not  allow  the  Titan  to  speak  at  once. 
The  coryphaeus  interposes  to  ask  for  lo's  own  story  first.  At 
its  conclusion  lo  again  for  the  third  time  asks  her  question 
(683-684).  But  even  so  the  poet  will  not  permit  the  hero  to 
speak.  Prometheus  first  arouses  curiosity  by  verses  696  and 
697: 

JZQW  y&  0T8vd^eii;  xai  (p6(3ou  jiAea  xig  eI* 
ejiio/eg  eot'  av  xai  xa  Aoijra  jiQcajiddT];. 

Then — and  only  after  the  chorus  have  added  the  weight  of 
their  insistence  (698-699) — he  begins  the  story  of  lo's  wan- 
dering. As  we  have  seen,  the  poet  caused  Prometheus  to  be 
asked  four  times  and  by  both  parties,  lo  and  the  coryphaeus, 
before  he  would  allow  his  acquiescence ;  and,  now  that  he  has 
allowed  him  to  speak,  he  may  only  tell  the  story  by  half. 
Feeling  that  a  recital  of  the  whole  tale  in  one  telling  w^ould  be 
putting  too  great  a  demand  upon  the  patience  and  interest 
of  his  audience,  he  causes  Prometheus  to  break  off  at  740 
with 

*  *  *  ovg  yoLQ  vvv  dxrixoag  Xoyovg, 
elvai  60x81  001  f-ti'iSejta)  "v  iJigooifiioig. 

By  these  words  and  also  verses  743  and  744  (xi  nov  Spdoosig, 
oxav  xd  XoLJtd  jivvddvT]  xaxd;)  the  Titan  piques  curiosity^^  again 

"'It  was  re-asked  because  lo's  wonder  had  led  her  to  interrupt  her 
previous  question  by  another  as  to  the  cause  of  Prometheus'  punish- 
ment (614). 

*'In  wonder  he  is  asked  by  the  Coryphaeus  in  745  whether  he  has 
more  to  tell ;  and  incites  the  more  wonder  by  his  reply  in  the  next 
verse  that  he  has  yet  to  tell  of  a  "storm-tost  sea  of  trouble." 


SPEECHES  6l 

— without  satisfying  it  at  once,  however,  as  the  tragedian  was 
too  good  an  artist  to  make  such  a  mistake.  Instead  he  intro- 
duces into  the  conversation  that  all-engrossing  subject,  the  fall 
of  Zeus.  When  this  secret  of  Prometheus  has  been  developed 
to  the  point  he  wishes,  Aeschylus,  preparatory  to  breaking  off 
the  dialogue,  causes  him  again  to  pique  the  curiosity  of  his  in- 
terlocutors (and  the  audience)  by  verse  776:  xal  \ir\bk  oavxr\g 
Y'  EX[ia??8iv  ^riT8i  mvovq.  By  this  means  he  turns  the  subject 
from  himself  to  lo,  and  prompts  a  renewal  of  interest  in  her 
own  future,  which  at  once  crystallizes  into  her  request  of  yyy, 
\ir]  ^loi  JTQOTeivcov  xe^Sog  eIt'  duoaxEQEi. 

Still  Prometheus  will  not  yield  until  he  has  again  most 
provokingly  aroused  curiosity  by  verse  778,  in  which  he  inti- 
mates that  he  has  two  interesting  disclosures  to  make,  the  one 
or  the  other  of  which  he  will  probably  withhold.  At  last, 
under  importunity,  he  reveals  one  part  of  his  story,  the 
future  wanderings  of  lo  (786-818).  So  it  is  only  after  he 
has  piqued  curiosity  four  or  five  times,  and  been  literally 
begged  by  lo  as  well  as  by  the  chorus  for  a  further  recital, 
that  he  will  resume — a  resumption  itself  broken  in  half  at 
verse  818;  for  despite  the  keen  Greek  relish  for  geographical 
data,  Aeschylus  felt  that  this  last  long  recital  (786-876)  would 
gain  by  interruption.  Moreover,  this  interruption  is  but  the 
final  solicitation  of  the  chorus  for  the  other  story,  if  the  first 
be  finished.  The  Titan  now  takes  up  this  other  tale  about 
his  releaser  Heracles  (844-876),  after,  however,  first  outlin- 
ing lo's  journey  before  she  had  reached  the  stage — a  narrative 
itself  which  he  is  careful  to  justify  by  824  ff. 

These  passages  in  the  Septem  and  Prometheus  are  a 
sufficient  indication  that  Aeschylus  felt  the  difficulty  on  which 
the  epic  drama  was  likely  to  ground,  and  that  he  has  taken 
care  to  introduce  variety  in  long^^  narrative  passages,  and  to 

"Tor  an  interesting  discussion  of  long  speeches,  see  Freytag,  op. 
cit,  pp.  144-145. 


\ 


62  DRAMATIC    ART    OF    AESCHYLUS 

justify  them  by  speeches  which  often  also  arouse  interest  and 
hold  attention. 

Five  speeches  justifying  a  previous  silence. — In  the  Per- 
sians (290  ff.)  Aeschylus  evidently  feels  called  upon  to  justify 
Atossa's  silence  (249-289).  Here  the  reason  assigned  is 
"overcoming  grief."  Dignan^^  attributes  this  apology  to  the 
awkwardness  the  poet  felt  in  the  preceding  dialogue — one  of 
two  parts  excluding  the  queen.  But  the  interesting  point  to 
me  is :  why  did  Aeschylus  feel  a  possible  awkwardness  in  the 
silence?  I  do  not  believe  any  modern  reader  feels  it.  In- 
deed, quite  to  the  contrary,  he  feels  with  Masqueray,^""  Gi- 
rard,"^  and  Prickard"-  that  the  silence  is  a  fine  dramatic 
touch.  From  our  modern  standpoint  an  apology  is  certainly 
gratuitous.  But  Aeschylus  gave  one,  and  I  believe  the  reason 
is  not  far  to  seek.  So  far  as  we  know  from  extant  plays  this 
was  his  first  attempt  at  dramatic  silence  ;^°^  and,  being  an 
innovation,  it  needed  a  word  of  explanation,  else  its  use  here 
might  have  been  misunderstood.  No  doubt,  by  the  time  of 
the  production  of  the  Persians,  forced  silences,  if  also  awkward, 
as  those  of  Danaus  in  the  Suppliants,  were  distasteful  to  the 
more  cultivated  part  of  the  Greek  audience ;  and  doubtless 
severe  criticisms  had  been  passed  upon  them.  Aeschylus, 
therefore,  when,  from  choice  and  not  necessity,  employing  a 
silence  in  a  later  play,  wished  the  dramatic  (inner)  reason 
for  its  introduction  distinctly  understood.  Now  Dignan  is 
undoubtedly  right  in  emphasizing  Aeschylus'  fondness  for 
two-part  dialogues,  and  may  be  right  in  explaining  the  silence 


''''Op.  cit.,  p.  17. 

^"^Theorie    des    formes  lyriques  de   la    tragedie  grecque,  pp.  135  ff. 

"'Revue  des  etudes  grecques,  VIII  (1895),  p.  119. 

'"'See  the  note  in  his  edition  on  290. 

'"'Silences  had,  of  course,  occurred  before,  as  in  the  Suppliants,  but 
they  were  probably  forced  on  the  poet,  who  had  as  yet  found  no  means 
to  relieve  their  awkwardness. 


SPEECHES  63 

in  the  following  way:^"*  ''We  have  a  regular  scheme  of  two- 
line  speeches  by  the  messenger,  interspersed  with  strophe  and 
antistrophe  by  the  chorus.  Atossa  would  have  disturbed  this 
neat  balance,  had  she  spoken."  It  may,  then,  possibly  have 
been  an  external  reason  which  influenced  Aeschylus  in  this 
early  play  to  neglect  one  of  his  personages,  whether  the  cory- 
phaeus or  Atossa.  Now  which  should  it  be?  To  Aeschylus 
there  could  be  but  one  answer :  the  one  who  could  be  silent 
on  strong  and  sufficient  inner  ground.  Atossa,  therefore, 
was  chosen  for  this  silence.  It  only  remains  to  be  added  that 
the  poet  justified  it  in  the  passage  under  discussion  by  stating 
this  satisfying  inner  ground,  lest  some  less  discerning  critic 
should  observe  the  silence,  and  failing  to  discover  the  inner, 
should  attribute  to  the  outer  reason  its  introduction. 

In  the  Septem  866  if.  Tucker"^  is  probably  right  in  as- 
suming that  we  have  another  apology  for  silence.  I  quote 
his  note :  "These  words  serve  as  an  explanation  of  the  pro- 
longed silence  of  the  sisters  after  appearing  upon  the  stage. 
The  chorus  will  act  like  the  'Oqi'ivoov  s|aQXoi  in  II.  24,  720.'' 
This  kommos  seems  to  have  been  a  part  of  the  Greek  ritual ; 
so  the  chorus  (866  ff.)  justify  it  to  the  exclusion  of  conversa- 
tion, which  we  might  expect  on  the  entrance  of  two  new  char- 
acters.^°*^ 

There  is  another  apology  for  silence  in  the  Prometheus 
(loi  ff. — especially  106-108)  : 

alV  oi5t8  oiyav  oute  [if]  oiyuv  xvy^ai^ 
olov  T8  [xoi  xdab'  eoxi.     ??vT]Toig  yotQ  yiQOL 
jioQwv  dvdyxaig  TaTo8'  evet,evy[iiai  TctAag  • 

Here  but  for  these  verses  an  unfavorable  critic  would  have 


'"*Op.  cit.,  p.  17. 

"^In  his  note. 

'"^At  the  close  of  Antigone  we  have  a  lament  (kommos)  between 
the  chorus  and  Creon,  but  there  they  address  each  other  and  there  is, 
of  course,  no  silence  to  be  explained. 


64  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

much  ground  for  attributing  it  solely  to  external  necessity, 
as  Prometheus^"^  made  the  third  actor  in  the  first  extant  play, 
as  is  well  known,  in  which  such  an  actor  was  introduced. ^°^ 
But  Aeschylus  has  anticipated  such  a  critic's  adverse  judg- 
ment by  the  Titan's  apology  for  silence — which  is  the  poet's 
inner  and  complete  vindication. 

As  an  addendum  to  the  consideration  of  this  passage 
I  wish  to  take  exception  to  a  statement  made  by  Dignan"^ 
with  reference  to  Prometheus'  silence.  I  quote:  "Was 
this  done  deliberately  for  artistic  efifect,  as  is  often  said, 
or  was  it  the  result  of  practical  limitations?  The  question 
seems  settled  by  the  fact  that  neither  in  the  scene  itself  nor 
in  the  monologue  that  follows,  is  there  any  reference  to  the 
silence  as  a  sign  of  Prometheus'  pride.  To  plan  such  an  effect 
and  carry  it  out  without  calling  attention  to  it  by  explicit 
mention  might  accord  well  enough  with  modern  methods,  but 
it  is  absolutely  un-Aeschylean,  not  to  say  un-Greek."  I  agree 
that  it  would  be  "un-Aeschylean  to  plan  such  an  effect  with- 
out calling  attention  to  it,"  but  the  fact  is — in  my  opinion — 
the  poet  has  called  attention  to  it  by  the  verses  under  discuss- 
ion in  the  monologue.  The  Titan  says :  "I  am  not  able  to 
be  silent  about  these  misfortunes  (as  I  was  a  while  ago)  nor 
to  give  them  expression  (as  I  am  now  trying  to  do),"  and  the 
following  verse  and  one  half  give  his  reason — a  sense  of  out- 
rage at  his  treatment.  These  three  verses,  together  with 
xaiTOi  Ti  cpTi|.u;  (loi),  wherein  he  chides  himself  for  momen- 
tary   weakness,    it    seems  to    me,    sufficiently    refer  to    the 

"'Granting  throughout  this  criticism  that  Prometheus  was  a  living 
actor — a  view  to  which  I  most  strongly  subscribe. 

'"^It  would  have  been  difficult  for  the  poet  (even  had  he  wished)  to 
keep  all  three  actors  engaged  in  conversation.  Even  in  the  Oresteia 
there  is  seldom  a  three-part  dialogue,  and  he  was  never  so  successful 
with  it  as  his  successor,  Sophocles. 

'"'Op.  cit.,  p.  23. 


SPEECHES  65 

silence  as  a  sign  of  pride — and  scorn,  even.  Finally,  the  denial 
of  pride  and  self-will  (436-437)  as  causes  of  his  second  silence 
in  this  play,  may  indicate  that  they  were,  indeed,  the  causes 
of  his  first  silence. 

As  just  intimated,  we  have  another  silence  explained  in 
the  same  play  (436  ff.)  : 

^T|  Toi  xhbr[  8ox£iTS  |.u]6'  avdabiq 
Giyav  [.18  •  auvvoia  88  8djtT0|.iai  xeap, 
oQoov  e^xauTov  (1)88  JtQovoeAoiJiiEvov. 

Prometheus  gives  as  his  reason  for  delay  in  fulfilling  his 
promise  of  275,  not  pride  and  self-will  (of  which  he  had  been 
accused  by  Oceanus  and,  in  a  milder  way,  by  the  chorus),  for 
the  pride  which  he  vaunted  in  Zeus'  face  would  have  become 
him  ill  if  exhibited  toward  his  friends,  the  Oceanides,  but  a 
heart  gnawed  with  anger  at  his  punishment.  This  is  a  splen- 
did reason  for  his  silence  and  completely  conceals  the  external 
reason  for  its  interposition,  viz.,  that  the  stasimon  might  be 
rendered.  Here  Aeschylus  shows — what  the  scholiast  (M) 
remarks^" — that  not  only  are  pride  and  self-will  inner  grounds 
for  silence,  but  brooding  thoughts  of  a  wrong  as  well. 

There  are  in  the  AgaiaemiLQiL  (i 064-1 068 L-verses-of- Cly— 
temnestra  which  explain  Cassandra's  loiig_sj]enc.e I  am  not 

__stH=e"Lhat  Aeschylub-cons^iously  added  them  to  justify  or  give 
inner  grounds  for  this  silence,  but  it  may  well  be  in  view  of 
similar   explanations   that   he   did.     Here  the   silence   of  the 

"prophetess "was  forced  on  the  poet  by  the  conditions  of  the 

""^icojrdJoi  JtaQu  JtoiriTaig  xd  JTQoocojia,  ti  81'  av^abiav,  (bg  'AxiXXev^ 
Aioxv?tCp,  X.  T.  X.  Of  about  the  same  content  is  the  commentary  of 
Iv  Tolc;  $Qit^l  AlaxvXov  ii  8id  xiiv  av\i(pooa.v,  wg  fi  Ni6|3ti  KaQ' 
Eustathius  on  Homer,  Od.  23,  115.  The  same  scholiast  on  II.  24,  162, 
makes  the  well-known  statement  that  Aeschylus  was  initiating  Homer 
in  such  silences. 


66  DRAMATIC    ART    OF    AESCHYLUS 

plot^^^  rather  than  by  his  two-part  preference ;  but,  I  beheve, 
"another  reason,  quite  as  compelUng  to  Aeschykis,  caused  its 
introduction — the  dramatic  effect  sure  to  follow ;  and,  in  the 
abov^vords,  he  has  hinted  at  the  naturalness  of  this  silence, 
thus  successfully  warding  off  all  criticisms"-  which  unduly 
urge  the  external  reason. 

Speeches  in  the  Persians  sacrificing  illusion  for  tJie  sake 
of  their  effect. — The  most  of  these  have  been  noticed  in  the 
criticisms  and  editions,  but  (to  the  best  of  my  knowledge) 
have  not  been  collated.  In  general  they  are  not  used  be- 
cause of  demands  of  the  plot  for  the  development  of  the  action, 
but  are  introduced  for  their  own  sake  (whether  probable  or 
not)  to  gratify  an  immediate  end — the  patriotism  of  the  audi- 
ence. I  shall  attempt  to  do  little  more  than  enumerate  the 
examples,  with  an  occasional  comment.  In  verses  71  and  72 
the  Persian  elders  speak  of  the  pontoon  bridge  of  their  king 
from  the  Greek  rather  than  from  the  Persian  standpoint. 
Again  in  93-94  a  common  Greek  standpoint  is  again  assumed 
and  one  which,  I  believe,  is  hardly  Persian.  A  like  example 
of  thought  transference  may  be  found  in  loi  ft'.  This  strophe 
is  quite  natural  to  a  Greek,  who  looked  upon  himself  as  mas- 
ter of  the  sea,  but  certainly  un-Persian.  From  the  oriental 
point  of  view  no  such  land  limits  could  have  been  placed  upon 
a  Persian  monarch's  ambition. 

The  question  is :  Are  these  verses  to  be  considered  slips 
on  the  part  of  Aeschylus,  or  are  we  to  regard  them  as  justifi- 
able— indeed,  indispensable — because  his  audience  was  Greek? 
Doubtless  we  must  conclude  the  latter.  Inasmuch  as  his  audi- 
ence was  Greek,  he  was  compelled  to  speak  to  them  in  Greek 
terms ;  he  was  forced,  in  some  measure,  to  interpret  the 
thoughts  and  motives  of  the  other  side  in  Greek  expressions, 
else  to  his  audience  the  play  would  have  lacked  reality  and 

'"See  Allen,  loc.  cit.,  p.  271. 

'^See  Dignan's  criticism,  op.  cit.,  p.  26. 


SPEECHES  67 

failed  in  its  purpose."^  The  two  lo  episodes,  with  their  con- 
tradictory journeys  (in  the  SuppHants  and  Prometheus), 
prove  that  Aeschylus'  own  knowledge  of  Asiatic  geography 
was  scant  and  faulty.  Indeed  several  historical  mis-state- 
ments (although  some  statements,  of  course,  may  have  been 
consciously  twisted  to  suit  his  own  dramatic  ends)  show 
that  his  knowledge  of  Persian  history  was  far  from  accurate. 
He  had  no  Herodotus  for  consultation  as  have  we.  There- 
fore we  must  not  assume  a  very  accurate  geographical  or 
historical  knowledge  on  the  part  of  either  Aeschylus  or  his 
audience.  He  was,  consequently,  able  to  take  liberties  with 
places  and  personages  which  may  seem  to  us  rather  strange, 
A  certain  range  of  liberties  with  facts,  then,  we  shall  take 
for  granted.  In  the  passages  already  cited  it  is  the  Persian 
side  of  the  picture  before  us,  but  on  it  are  written  Greek  let- 
ters. In  231  Atossa  asks  a  question  not  called  for  by  the 
development  of  the  plot  (i.  e.,  which  is  not  naturally  brought 
about  by  the  actors  themselves"'),  for  she  was  cognizant  of  the 
information  she  requested. ^^^  But  this  unlikely  question  and 
the  succeeding  questions  were  more  than  excused  by  the 
Athenian  audience  on  hearing  the  answers.  They  were  asked 
with  intent  to  glorify  Athens,  and  had  no  dramatic  justifica- 
tion. In  a  patriotic  drama  like  the  Persians,  however,  dra- 
matic propriety  must  be  sacrificed  occasionally  to  patriotic 
effect.  I  quote  Prickard's  note:  "Point  by  point  the  ques- 
tioner has  drawn  out  all  the  distinctive  points  of  pride  in  her 
son's  enemies :  their  men ;  their  resources ;  and  now  their 
national  weapon."  Furthermore,  the  points  lead  in  each  case 
to  a  corresponding  disparagement  of  the  Persians. 

""For  some  of  the  general  principles  governing  the  laying  of  a  plot 
in  foreign  lands,  consult  Freytag,  op.  cit.,  pp.  54-55. 

"^See  Richter,  op.  cit.,  pp.  90-91. 

■■"Verse  348  shows  this,  as  well  as  verses  474-475.  See  the  notes  in 
Prickard's  edition. 


68  DRAMATIC    ART    OF    AESCHYLUS 

There  is  like  reason  for  the  marked  enthusiasm  (see  espe- 
cially 429-432)  which  the  messenger  shows  as  he  recounts  to 
the  Persians  (but  really  to  the  Athenians)  the  disaster  at 
Salamis.  Most  unjustifiable  from  a  dramatic  standpoint,  it 
was  yet  most  acceptable  to  the  audience,  many  of  whom  were 
veterans  who  had  fought  in  the  battle  by  the  poet's  side.  The 
following  references  give  the  verses  of  the  herald,  which 
from  the  Greek  view-point  furnish  grim  touches  on  the  de- 
feat: 305,  307,  316  and  317,  319,  325  (note  the  contrast  be- 
tween Evxvxihc.  and  £V8i8rig  in  the  preceding  line),  337  and 
344  (where  the  numerical  superiority  of  the  Persian  force  is 
dwelt  on  at  unnecessary  length),  384  and  385,  424  to  426,  462 
and  463 ;  also  in  349  there  is  an  unusually  fine  touch,  where 
the  messenger,  in  answer  to  the  preceding  question,  speaks 
wholly  out  of  character.  Any  real  Persian  herald  could  and 
would  have  (truthfully)  answered:  "Athens  is  destroyed." 
Not  so  the  actor  here,  who  exclaims :  "Athens  is  not  destroy- 
ed, for  she  is  surrounded  by  the  bulwarks  of  her  men." 

We  have  another  transference  of  a  Greek  idea  in  the 
i^Ewv  cpi^ovov  (362).  Verses  402-405  are  altogether  gratuitous 
additions  for  the  gratification  of  the  Athenians.  Another 
unlikely  utterance  is  xXeivoov  'A^tivcov  (474)  ;  yet  so  marked 
an  appreciation  of  Athens,  coming  from  Xerxes'  mother  (es- 
pecially after  her  pretended  ignorance  of  231),  that  it  must 
have  been  especially  gratifying.  Verses  707-708  are  true  and 
like  Solon's  advice  to  Croesus  (Herod  i,  32)  :  "but  we  hardly 
expect  this  gentle  wisdom  from  a  great  Eastern  despot,  even 
with  the  melancholy  of  the  world  of  shades  upon  his  lips."^^® 
Again  in  723  (and  perhaps  in  725)  we  have  a  transference 
of  Greek  thought.  783  is  rather  hard  on  Xerxes,  who  was 
merely  carrying  out  the  projects  left  unfinished  by  Darius. 
Here  Aeschylus  may  have  been  ignorant  of  the  fact,  or  he 

"^Prickard's  note  on  708. 


SPEECHES  69 

may  have  consciously  changed  it,  as  he  wished  to  express 
the  lessons  of  the  war,  and  incidentally,  of  the  drama,  through 
the  lips  of  the  ghost,  whose  utterance  would  naturally  carry 
more  than  earthly  authority.  If  the  poet  changed  the  facts 
(as  he  knew  them),  there  must  have  been  divergence  of  opin- 
ion among  the  people  to  allow  such  change.  The  speech  of 
Darius  (805-831)  is  very  un-Persian.  He  tells  the  elders 
that  at  Plataea  the  Persians  will  meet  the  punishment  due  to 
their  insolence  and  sacrilege,  for  Zeus  will  not  clear  the  pre- 
sumptuous. When  we  come  to  Xerxes'  speech,  in  like  manner, 
we  find  grim  touches  of  unlikely  utterance  but  of  keen  relish 
to  the  listeners  in  the  theatre.  Verses  974-977,  "Ah  me,  be- 
holding ancient,  hateful  Athens,  they  (the  Persian  marines), 
all  lie  flapping  (as  fish)  and  gasping,  poor  fellows,  on  the  dry 
land,"  the  real  Xerxes  could  never  have  spoken.  From  1017  to 
1022  we  have  a  somewhat  undue  emphasis  on  the  quiver — 
the  only  thing  the  king  says  he  has  been  able  to  save  out  of 
all  his  vast  equipment.  In  1023  he  is  most  drily  comforted 
by  the  elders.  Again  in  1025  occurs  a  statement  unnaturally 
added  for  effect. 

Of  course,  the  primary  purpose  of  Aeschylus  in  this  drama 
was  not  to  raise  a  laugh  at  the  expense  of  the  Persians  or  to 
hold  a  conquered  enemy  in  derision,  but  to  show  a  monarch 
fallen  from  far  heights  to  low  depths,  because  of  his  v^Qig 
in  the  sight  of  heaven.  He  did  not,  however,  refrain  from 
these  unlikely  speeches  already  mentioned — touches — asides 
— which  made  the  play  of  much  more  interest  to  his  audience. 
That  many  of  the  spectators  were  filled  with  an  exultant 
spirit  when  Xerxes  entered  and  delivered  himself  in  the  ridicu- 
lous scene  that  followed,  is  evident  from  a  passage  of  /\ris- 
tophanes  (Frogs,  1026-1029).  In  my  opinion,  the  whole  audi- 
ence^^'  was  pleased  and  the  poet  would  have  missed  his  patri- 

"'Patriotism  blinded  their  eyes  to  dramatic  defects,  just  as  it  had 
soothed  Aeschylus'  conscience  when  he  wrote. 


70  DRAMATIC    ART   OF    AESCHYLUS 

Otic  purpose  had  he  denied  them  the  last  scene.  As  Prickard^^^ 
well  says:  "There  is  a  double  point  of  view  throughout;  the 
ideal  spectator  must  now  place  himself  at  Susa,  and  now  re- 
member that  he  is  sitting  in  the  theatre  at  Athens,  with  Salamis 
before  his  eyes."  Such  a  spectator  (who  was  in  fact  the 
Athenian  himself),  despite  the  violation  of  dramatic  proprie- 
ties, could  hardly  have  failed  thoroughly  to  appreciate  the 
Persians. ^^^ 

Speeches  transcending  the  knoidedge  of  the  speaker. — 
There  are  few  cases  that  can  come  up  even  for  consideration 
in  this  category,  and,  perhaps,  only  one  may  be  established.  I 
suppose,  therefore,  that  there  is  hardly  a  dramatic  poet  less 
guilty  in  this  regard. 

In  the  Suppliants  291-333  there  is  no  assignment  of  per- 
sons for  speeches  in  the  Mss.,  so  we  are  left  to  conjecture. 
In  308  of  the  standard  text  we  have  a  statement  of  the  king 
in  which  his  knowledge  of  the  name  oIotqov  has  been  called 
in  question.  How,  it  is  said,  would  he  know  the  word  for 
gad-fly  in  parts  about  the  Nile?  Hermann  accordingly  has 
substituted  TvdxoD  for  NsiAou  of  the  codd.  The  king  might, 
however,  have  heard  the  name  from  some  traveler  and  treas- 
ured it,  since  it  concerned  the  story  of  so  well  known  a  per- 
sonage. But  all  this  is  beside  the  mark  if  we  accept  the 
assignment  of  parts  by  Tucker.  In  his  edition  this  speech 
falls  naturally  from  the  lips  of  the  Danaides.  On  the  whole 
I  prefer  Tucker's  text,  as,  among  other  points  in  its  favor,  it 
requires  the  assumption  of  but  one  lacuna  (betw^een  315  and 
317).  This  verse,  therefore,  has  by  no  means  a  clear  case 
for  admittance  under  this  head. 

In  the  Persians  {2yy)  the  words  jrAayxTOig  ev  8iJiA,dxEoaiv 
have  been  suspected  and  variously  emended,  because  they  con- 

"*In  his  Introduction,  p.  xxviii. 

"''We  know  from  a  statement  in  the  Hypothesis,  that  Aeschylus  won 
the  prize  with  the  trilogy  to  which  this  play  belonged. 


SPEECHES  71 

tain  a  descriptive  touch  which  would  more  naturally  come 
from  an  eye  witness  than  from  the  chorus.  Hermann  trans- 
lates :  "Wrapped  in  their  long  sea  coats  which  wander  up  and 
down  on  the  sea."  Others  translate :  "Among  the  wandering 
sea  planks  (sea-wreckage)."  If  the  text  be  right,  it  is  a  minute 
bit  of  description  on  the  part  of  the  chorus,  which  is  hardly 
a  legitimate  inference  from  the  two  preceding  verses  of  the 
herald,  and  so  may  be  properly  placed  under  this  category  of 
speeches.  It  is,  however,  if  genuine,  a  defect  of  the  very 
slightest  magnitude,  as  only  a  critic's  microscope  could  find 
it.     It  would  scarcely  present  itself  to  a  listener  in  the  theatre. 

In  the  Persians  (796  ff.)  we  seem  to  find  a  certain  exam- 
ple for  this  category.  Darius,  who  on  his  appearance  (in 
681),  had  had  no  knowledge  of  Salamis  (see  693),  here  pro- 
phesies the  defeat  at  Plataea.  In  fact,  it  was  largely  for  the 
divulgence  of  this  information,  I  think,  that  Aeschylus  brought 
on  his  ghost.  But,  so  far  as  I  know  from  passages^-°  in  extant 
Greek  literature  bearing  on  dead  spirits  and  their  knowledge, 
Darius  trespasses  on  probability  here  when  he  shows  such 
intimate  acquaintance  with  earthly  events  of  the  future.  In 
Homer  (Od.  XI)  Tiresias,  of  course,  could  prophesy,  though 
dead,  for  prophesy  had  been  his  office  in  life ;  but  all  of  the 
other  ghosts  were  as  ignorant  of  the  future  as  of  the  present 
state  of  their  loved  ones  on  earth.  Achilles,  though  a  prince 
among  the  dead,  just  as  Darius  (see  691),  knew  naught  of 
his  son's  welfare  until  assured  by  Ulysses.  Of  course,  Aeschy- 
lus may  have  had  some  warrant  for  Darius'  prophesy  which 
we  do  not  now  possess,  but  this  prophetic  speech  seems  to 
belong  here  in  classification.^-^ 

In  yet  another  passage  (745-746)  Darius  speaks  what  he 
can  hardly  be  presumed  to  know.     This  is  before  he  begins 

""See  the  Od.  xi ;  and  Aristotle's  Ethics,  i,  lo-il. 
"'See  Prickard's  note  on  800. 


72  DRAMATIC    ART    OF   AESCHYLUS 

to  prophesy,  so  we  shall  have  to  limit  his  information  here 
at  least  to  ordinary  channels.^--     He  says : 

ooxic,  'EXkr]OK0VT0v  Igbv  bovl.ov  &c,  bEO[i(hyiaoiv 
I'lAjtioe  o/rioeiv    QEOvxa,  BoonoQOV    qoov  ^eov- 

Now  y22  is  his  only  possible  source  of  information,  so  he 
seems  to  infer  from  this  verse  a  little  more  than  is  warranted, 
as  680|ia)|iaoiv  (745)  is  more  specific  than  [.irix'^^ot^?  (722). 
Doubtless  Aeschylus  gave  this  statement  to  Darius  because 
of  the  common  story  of  the  scourging  of  the  Hellespont,  which 
Herodotus  later  gathered  into  his  history.  This  again  is 
scarcely  a  defect,  and  rather  concerns  a  laboratory  and  micro- 
scope than  the  spectator  of  drama. 

To  two  passages  in  the  Agamemnon  my  attention  has 
been  called  as  possibly  belonging  here.  The  first  is  the  long 
description  of  Clytemnestra  (320  ff.).  This,  however,  seems 
to  me  nothing  more  than  an  imaginative  picture  which  Cly- 
temnestra drew  of  the  situation  at  Troy, — a  general  descrip- 
tion which  any  person  of  vivid  imagination  might  have  drawn 
on  the  information  of  a  city's  capture.  I  am  the  more  inclined 
to  this  view  since  Clytemnestra  begins  the  picture  with' 
oi[iai  (321),  "methinks.'"^ 

It  is  almost  as  doubtful  whether  the  second  instance  can 
come  under  this  head.  In  587  Clytemnestra  steps  out  of  the 
palace  to  greet  the  herald.  She  has  been  off  the  stage  since 
350.     In  590,  however,  she  says : 

'^When  Darius  first  appears  in  681,  his  first  question  apparently  be- 
trays a  complete  ignorance  of  Persian  history  after  his  death. 

"^On  page  342  of  his  introduction  Verrall  gives  an  opposite  view ; 
I  quote :  "The  queen,  in  short,  knows  so  much  that  it  becomes  an  in- 
teresting enquiry  how  much  exactly  she  knows,  and  what  is  the  source 
of  her  knowledge.  In  fact,  he  urges  this  knowledge  (unlikely,  he  takes 
it,  according  to  the  traditional  interpretation  of  the  play)  as  a  point  in 
favor  of  his  theory  of  the  Agamemnon. 


SPEECHES 


73 


xai  Tig  n'  IviKOOv  eXiie,  'qpQvxxooQOOv  8ia 
jTEiodeioa  T^oiav  vvv  mnoQ^r\o^ai  Soxeig; 
f)  xaQxa  JTQog  ywaixog  aiQEO^ai  xsap.' 

This  remark  would  at  once  be  referred  by  the  audience  to 
the  incredulity  of  the  chorus  in  483  fif.  But  how  could  Cly- 
temnestra  know  of  this,  as  she  was  not  on  the  stage  at  the 
time?  Verrall  answers  by  saying  that  the  queen  has  set 
spies  to  watch  the  elders  and  report  within.  Sidgwick  says 
in  his  note :  "The  chorus  only  express  the  general  feeling  of 
the  citizens,  which  she  can  naturally  be  supposed  to  learn." 
At  the  worst,  it  is  but  a  slight  slip  which  we  may  be  sure  never 
occurred  to  Aeschylus'  audience. 

As  we  have  just  seen,  instances  of  passages  where  a  knowl- 
edge transcending  that  of  the  speaker  is  found,  are  exceed- 
ingly hard  to  find.  In  the  Persians  there  is  probably  one 
instance,  with  possibly  three  others  of  very  slight  importance. 
Another  little  slip  may  possibly  be  found  in  the  Agamemnon ; 
but  after  several  re-readings,  I  have  been  unable  to  add  to 
these  examples.  A  consideration  of  this  classification,  there- 
fore, adds  rather  than  detracts  from  our  estimation  of  the 
poet. 


U.C.  BERKEL 


CQOb: 


